"^ \llen« Stewart
33S.43 Montana
't"^9''l bloeconoalcs Atudy
f 2 niiseh
lliSS
MONTANA BIOECONOMICS STUDY
Results of the Elk Hunter
Preference Study
^^rE DOCUMENTS COLLECTION
^UG4 1989
WEUNA, MONTANA 1-9620
PLEASE RETURN
September 1988
(y^ioqtaqa'Departnfetjt of
yi Tiati.'WthUife (Si Vai^
-1991 MONTANA STATE LIBRARY
9Q 11 11 iiini
^- ' ' V 0864 00062491 9
MONTANA BIOECONOMICS STUDY
RESULTS OF THE ELK HUNTER PREFERENCE SURVEY
Prepared for
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
By
Stewart Allen, Ph.D.
432 West C Street
Moscow, ID 83843
(208) 883-2597
September, 1988
Major portions of the funding
required to produce the reports
in this series were provided by
the Federal Aid in Sport Fish
and Wildlife Restoration Acts.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The main goal of the Montana Bioeconomics Study was to estimate
the economic value of elk hunting trips in Montana using travel
cost and contingent valuation methods. This draft report
summarized the results of the Hunter Preference Survey conducted
during Fall 1986. It is a companion paper to the economic
findings reported by John Loomis. The Hunter Preference Study
had three objectives:
1. To clearly specify the products (elk hunting opportunities)
for which economic values were estimated.
2. To learn more about elk hunters in Montana such as where
they were from, why they were hunting, what type of
experiences they had on their most recent trip, and how they
viewed existing and potential hunting management actions.
3. To identify subgroups of elk hunters or hunter "types" who
obtain similar benefits from elk hunting and should have
similar perceptions of the trip's economic value.
Sample Design
The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks defined the
study population as people who hunted elk in one of 18 Montana
hunting areas during the 1986 general season (the areas were
called Libby, Bob Marshall, Augusta, Fort Peck, Superior, Flint
Creeks, Butte, Townsend, Little Belts, Pioneers, Tobacco Roots,
Bridgers, Tendoys , Gravellys, Madisons, Gardiner, Absarokas, and
Missouri Breaks).
The sampling frame was a list of 102,753 license holders
(residents who purchased big game combination licenses or elk
licenses and nonresidents who purchased one of the 17,000
nonresident big game combination licenses allotted in 1986).
The desired sample size was approximately 200 people for each of
the 18 target hunting areas, the number needed to conduct the
economic analysis. A stratified systematic random sample of
8,000 was drawn using the three license types as the strata. The
data were analyzed and key findings reported separately for
residents and nonresidents.
An adaptation of Dillman's (1978) Total Design Method was used to
conduct the mail survey. A questionnaire booklet, cover letter,
and a stamped, addressed return envelope were mailed to the
sample in January 1987. A postcard reminder was sent one week
later. On February 17, a followup letter and second copy of the
booklet was sent to people who had not responded.
Results
The target sample size was achieved or approached for 16 of the
18 areas (the two areas in eastern Montana were hunted by only .1
and .3 percent of the sample, so those results were not
reported) .
The overall response rate was 6 5 percent, somewhat lower than the
response rate for the Angler Preference Survey (81 percent) but
acceptable for mail questionnaires. Here are some
characteristics of the 3,114 hunters who hunted in one of the
study areas (these results differed by area as shown in the main
report ) :
* 69 percent lived in Montana
* 95 percent were men, and their (median) age was 38
(nonresident hunters' average age was 43 compared to 37
years old for the residents)
* They had been hunting for ten years (median), residents an
average of 15 years and nonresidents an average of 8 years
* They hunted a median of ten days per year, nearly all of
which were in Montana
* 16 percent said elk hunting was their favorite outdoor
recreation activity, 49 percent said it was one of their
favorite, and 34 percent said it was one of many outdoor
recreation activities in which they participated
* 30 percent of the residents were members of hunting, sport,
or environmental organizations compared to 60 percent of the
nonresidents
* 31 percent were making their first visit to the hunting
area, but the median years hunting the target area was five
* Residents had been hunting the area an average of four
years longer than had the nonresidents
* 13 percent hunted for one day or less on the most recent
trip while 12 percent hunted for two days, nine percent for
three, and 18 percent for four or five days; median trip
length was five days (nonresidents' trips averaged two days
longer than residents' trips)
* They hunted for eight hours a day (median)
* 32 percent of the nonresident hunters hired an outfitter or
guide compared to just over one percent of the residents
IX
* 99 percent hunted with a rifle
* 18 percent were successful in taking an elk (20 percent of
the nonresidents and 17 percent of the residents)
* 81 percent of the elk taken by Montana residents were
antlered compared to 87 percent of the elk taken by
nonresidents
* Of the residents' antlered elk, 35 percent had one point on
side 1 and 16 percent had six points on side 1
* Of the nonresidents' antlered elk, 28 percent had one point
on side 1 and 22 percent had six points on side 1
* 40 percent of the nonresidents and 33 percent of the
residents harvested other game on their most recent elk
hunting trip
* 66 percent of the other animals taken were mule deer, 30
percent white-tailed deer, and two percent bear
* The average (median) number of miles walked was six
* 13 percent were alone in their vehicle, 41 percent were
with one other hunter, 29 percent with two others, and 12
percent with three others
* 10 percent said they didn't see any other hunters; the
median number of others seen was nine (mean number seen was
17)
* 49 percent said the number of other hunter seen was about as
many as expected, 34 percent said it was more, and 17
percent said it was fewer than expected
* One third of the sample said that the other hunters
affected their own enjoyment of the trip
* If hunters were affected by others, the most common reason
was not enough space/too many people (which comprised 24
percent of the responses made), noise or visual intrusions
(22 percent), less solitude (11 percent), competition for
game (11 percent), and road hunting (9 percent)
Hunters were presented with a list of 16 possible reasons for
hunting where they did and were asked to rate the importance of
each. Of the five most important reasons people hunted where
they did, only one was directly related to elk populations. Of
the two items traditionally viewed as the main products of elk
hunting opportunities, hunting for meat was rated as a more
important reason than taking a trophy.
Several questions addressed hunting management issues. The
first set of questions asked hunters about access road used for
hunting:
* 68 percent said the number of roads open to vehicle use in
the area was about right, 10 percent said there were too
few, and 2 2 percent said there were too many roads for
hunting purposes
* 33 percent said the number of open roads had not changed in
the area in recent years, 24 percent said there were fewer
open roads, 13 percent said there were more, and 28 percent
were not sure
* 53 percent said hunters should be able to retrieve game
with vehicles only on open roads, 31 percent said using
closed roads should be allowed, and 22 percent said hunters
should be allowed to use vehicles off roads to retrieve game
The other set of management questions presented hunters with six
elk management scenarios and asked whether they would favor the
policy, not favor it but accept it, would not accept it, or would
need more information to make a decision. They following tables
show how residents and nonresidents viewed the management
options .
A. No special permit to hunt bull elk would be needed. There
would be considerable competition for bull elk but no
restrictions other than having a license. You could hunt
every year, but your odds of getting a bull would be less
than 1 in 10.
Residents Nonresidents
Favor 39 20
Do not favor
but would accept 24 24
Not Acceptable 17 29
Would need more
information 21 26
Residents
Nonresidents
18
26
32
34
39
28
An unlimited number of bull elk permits would be available.
You would be able to get a permit every year, but you would
have to choose the one district where you would hunt and not
be able to hunt in any other districts.
Favor
Do not favor
but would accept
Not Acceptable
Would need more
information 10 11
A limited number of bull elk permits would be available
through a drawing in June. You would have to choose the one
district where you would hunt and not be able to hunt in any
other districts. You might get a permit only once every
five years, but if you did obtain a permit you would have a
much better chance (than one in ten) of getting a bull.
Favor
Do not favor
but would accept
No acceptable
Would need more
information 8 12
Residents
Nonresidents
10
18
18
24
63
45
Residents
MonresidentB
41
53
32
28
19
12
D. The taking of bull elk would be subject to point
regulations. Hunters could shoot only bulls that had at
least one antler with two or more points.
Favor
Do not favor
but would accept
Not acceptable
Would need more
information
E. The taking of bull elk would be subject to point
regulations. Hunters could shoot only bulls that had at
least one antler with five or more points.
Favor
Do not favor
but would accept
Not acceptable
Would need more
information
To reduce pressure on bulls, antlerless elk permit holders
would be allowed to hunt only antlerless elk and only in the
hunting district where their permit was valid.
Favor
Do not favor
but would accept
Not acceptable
Would need more
information
Residents
Nonresidents
10
16
22
29
60
46
Resident
Nonresidents
57
57
22
22
14
12
Hunter Types
A cluster analysis was conducted on seven of the 16 reasons for
choosing to hunt a given hunting area on their last trip. The
seven items were selected because initial clustering runs and
past research suggested that they would be the most efficient
variables identifying distinct types of hunters, each of whom
hunted for different reasons. Four distinct types of hunters
were identified.
Nature hunters -- said they were hunting to be outdoors, for the
solitude, to be close to home, and to get away from other
hunters. Seventy-seven percent were Montana residents. Hunting
for meat, enjoying the scenery, being in a natural area, and
being with their family were all less important.
The four most important reasons for hunting where they did could
apply to a wide variety of outdoor experiences in a natural
environment, not just hunting. They were avid outdoors
enthusiasts who likely participated in many recreational
activities (only 13 percent said elk hunting was their favorite
outdoor recreational activity) .
Generalist hunters -- said their most important reason for
hunting was being outdoors followed by hunting where game was
abundant, for the solitude, for the meat, and because they'd had
success hunting there before. Of the hunters in this cluster, 69
percent were Montana residents.
Their reasons for hunting were much more harvest related than
those of Nature hunters suggesting that this group contained more
serious hunters for whom hunting may not be as interchangeable
with other activities. The highest percentage of the four
clusters said that elk hunting was their favorite activity, and
they saw and killed more elk than any other group.
Trophy hunters -- were the only group that rated getting a
trophy as more important than getting meat. Avoiding other
hunters was more important than it was for the other clusters,
probably to decrease competition for elk.
Their most important reasons for hunting were to be where game
was abundant, be with friends, get a trophy elk, to be outdoors,
and to be with their families. Of the hunters in this cluster,
48 percent were Montana residents and 52% were nonresidents, the
highest proportion among the four groups. Twenty-one percent of
the trophy hunters said elk hunting was their favorite activity.
Meat hunters -- said that hunting for meat was their most
important reason for hunting followed by being where game was
abundant, hunting close to home, being outdoors, and because
they had good success there before.
This group valued hunting for meat more than the generalist
hunters did and placed far less value on trophies. They rated
solitude, being outdoors, enjoying the scenery, being in a
natural area, and being in rugged terrain as less important than
any of the other types did. These were still rated as moderately
important, however. Of the hunters in this group, 88 percent
were Montana residents, the highest proportion of any type.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary i
Sample Design i
Results ii
Hunter Types vii
Nature Hunters vii
Generalist Hunters vii
Trophy Hunters vii
Meat Hunters vii
Table of Contents ix
List of Tables x
List of Graphs xi
List of Figures xii
Introduction 1
Background 1
Survey Methods 3
Sample Design 3
Questionnaire Content 5
Questionnaire Administration 7
Results 7
Response Rates 7
Description of the Hunters 9
Most Recent Hunting Trip 10
Desired Experiences 12
Factor Analysis 26
Management Preferences 27
Hunter Types: Results of the Cluster Analysis 31
Nature Hunters 32
Generalist Hunters 35
Trophy Hunters 35
Meat Hunters 35
Cluster Validation 36
Conclusions 36
References 43
Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire and Coding Manual
Appendix B: Key Responses Reported by Hunting Area
Appendix C: Responses from All-terrain Vehicle Users, Members
of Organizations, and Younger Hunters
XX
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Number of questionnaires returned by people whose
most recent elk hunting trip took place in one of
the 16 target areas 8
Table 2. Importance of 16 reasons for choosing hunting
location (results in percent, listed in order of
importance, with major break points indicated by
dashed lines) 13
Table 3. Similarities and differences among the four
hunter types (in percent) 34
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 1. Importance of taking a trophy elk, by residency . . 14
Graph 2. Importance of hunting for the meat, by
residency 15
Graph 3. Importance of testing hunting skills, by
residency 16
Graph 4. Importance of avoiding other hunters, by
residency 17
Graph 5. Importance of good road access, by residency ... 18
Graph 6. Importance of viewing scenery, by residency .... 19
Graph 7. Importance of being in a natural setting, by
residency 2 0
Graph 8. Importance of hunting where friends are, by
residency 21
Graph 9. Importance of solitude, by residency 22
Graph 10. Importance of being close to home, by residency . . 23
Graph 11. Importance of rugged country, by residency .... 24
Graph 12. Importance of hunting with family members, by
residency 25
Graph 13. No special permit to hunt bull elk -- no
restrictions other than license -- odds of
getting bull < 1 in 10 37
Graph 14. Unlimited bull elk permits available -- could
get permit every year -- could hunt only one
district 38
Graph 15. Annual drawing for limited bull permits -- could
hunt only one district -- better chance of
getting bull elk 39
Graph 16. Could shoot only bulls that had at least one
antler with two or more points 40
Graph 17. Could shoot only bulls that had at least one
antler with five or more points 4 1
Graph 18. Antlerless elk permit holders could hunt only
antlerless elk only in permitted district 42
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Elk Hunting Areas, Map 4
Figure 2. Importance of seven reasons for hunting, by four
hunter types 33
INTRODUCTION
The main goal of the Montana Bioeconomics Study was to estimate
the economic value of elk hunting trips in Montana using travel
cost and contingent valuation methods. This draft report
summarizes the results of the Hunter Preference survey conducted
during fall, 1986. It is a companion paper to the economic
findings reported by Loomis (1987). The Hunter Preference Study
had three objectives:
1. To clearly specify the products (elk hunting
opportunities) for which economic values were estimated;
2. To learn more about elk hunters in Montana, such as
where they were from, why they were hunting, what type
of experiences they had on their most recent trip, and
how they viewed existing and potential hunting
management actions;
3. To identify subgroups of elk hunters, or hunter "types"
who obtain similar benefits from elk hunting and should
have similar perceptions of the trip's economic value.
This has been called the Hunter Preference Survey, but we really
studied a full range of hunters' attitudes, beliefs, intentions,
and behaviors. The next section reviews some of the applicable
literature on hunting.
BACKGROUND
When estimating the economic value of a nomnarket product such as
an elk hunting opportunity, it's critical to define the product
you're valuing (Driver, 1985). The elk are important, but so are
other aspects of the places people go to hunt, such as the
scenery, management regulations, and how many roads or other
people are there. In other words, the product of managing big
game hunting opportunities is not just the elk, but the whole
hunting setting (defined by its physical, social, and managerial
components) and the experiences people seek there.
Recreational activities such as hunting are done in so many
different styles, in so many different hunting areas, and by so
many different people, that there is no "average" hunter.
Hunting, like other recreational activities, means different
things to different people.
Hunting is subjectively perceived, but past research suggests
several ways to develop a reasonable number of hunter "types,"
people who are seeking the same types of experiences through
hunting. It makes sense to attach dollar values not just to
hunting, but to specific types of hunting trips taken in
Montana. This is a compromise between lumping all hunters
together (which assumes that all hunters seek the same
experiences from hunting), and analyzing each hunters' responses
individually.
Hobson Bryan's (1979) research on specialization paved the way
for research attempting to identify managerially-relevant
subgroups of recreationists . By observing and interviewing
anglers on several trout streams in Montana and Idaho, Bryan
developed a typology of anglers, from the occasional angler to
whom fishing was a casual affair to the technique-setting
specialists whose lives may revolve around fly-fishing. He (and
subsequent researchers) extended the model to fit other
activities, including hunting.
Bryan defined specialization as a developmental spectrum along
which outdoor recreation participants may progress as they
become more involved in a sport. The novice Montana anglers Bryan
studied, for example, typically valued being outdoors and
catching a fish -- any fish. As anglers learned more about
fishing, they became more interested in catching lots of fish,
and then, perhaps, with catching larger trout. As their
techniques were refined, they became more specialized, seeking
new types of experiences that depended more on specific
characteristics of the resource, such as good trout habitat and
regulations designed to conserve trout populations.
Not every hunter progresses orderly along this spectrum from
Occasional to Generalist to Setting-Technique specialist.
However, the typology is useful because it describes the types of
experiences desired by hunters in each group -- what they value
about hunting elk in Montana. The economic value should be higher
for some types of experiences and lower for others.
Hunter subgroups also should differ on how they would prefer to
see public lands managed, or the type of elk hunting
regulations, because different experiences are supported (or
prohibited) by different management programs. Occasional hunters
may not care how the elk are managed -- as long as the hunters
continue to have hunting area access.
The question then becomes how to define hunters ' styles in
useful ways. Past researchers have had success using cluster
analysis to develop subgroups of hunters. Cluster analysis uses a
set of variables, such as reasons for hunting or sources of
hunting satisfaction, to group together hunters having similar
patterns of responses across all the variables.
Hautaluoma and Brown (1978) used data collected in Washington
state to identify ten hunter types, each having a different
pattern of satisfaction across five dimensions: nature; harvest;
equipment; out-group contact; and skill. The resulting types
differed on many other variables, such as commitment to the
sport, the importance of harvest, and solitude. Brown,
Hautaluoma and McPhail (1977) conducted a cluster analysis to
identify eight hunter types of deer hunters in Colorado. Their
clustering variables were four dimensions of satisfaction: easy
hunt; harvest; out-group contact; and nature. Hautaluoma, Brown
and Battle (1981) identified between five and seven hunter types
of Colorado elk hunters (depending on license type, such as
archery vs. rifle hunters).
One problem with these studies is that they all derived clusters
(hunter types) statistically, instead of using an a priori
framework or theory to guide cluster identification. One result
of this was the typically large numbers of clusters that emerged
(because they were statistically significant), which may be
difficult to apply for management purposes. Instead, clusters
were defined based on Bryan's framework and past research.
The next section reviews the questionnaire content in more
detail after describing how the sample of hunters was chosen.
SURVEY METHODS
Sample Design
The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks defined the
study population as people who hunted elk in one of 18 Montana
hunting areas during the 1986 general season (Figure 1). The
sampling frame was a list of of 102,753 license holders
(residents who purchased big-game combination licenses or elk
licenses, and nonresidents who purchased one of the 17,000 non-
resident big game combination licenses allotted in 1986).
The desired sample size was approximately 200 people for each of
the 18 target hunting areas, the number needed to conduct the
economic analyses. A stratified systematic random sample of
8,000 was drawn using the three license types as the strata.
The sampling technique differed from that used in the Angler
Preference Survey. We knew where the anglers had fished because
they had been inteirviewed in the Department's annual telephone
fishing pressure survey, allowing the sample to be stratified by
river. No comparable information existed for the hunters so we
didn't know in what specific area an individual had hunted during
the 1986 season (or even if they'd hunted).
Originally, the Department planned to send 10,000 hunters
questionnaires, 80 percent to residents and 20 percent to
non-residents. When the sample size was cut to 8,000, only the
number of resident hunters in the sample was reduced. Therefore,
non-residents were oversampled; of the 8,000 hunters, 75 percent
were residents and 25 percent non-residents. A more accurate
estimate of 10-15 percent nonresident use is based on the
Department's annual hunting pressure surveys. This means that the
results were weighted by the views of non-residents.
Of course, residents and non-residents could have similar views
on many aspects of hunting, in which case the results could be
pooled safely. When the groups differ, however, the results do
not accurately represent the views of the study population. There
are several ways to deal with the overrepresentation . One
possibility is to statistically weight the residents' data so
their proportion in the sample would be the same as their
proportion in the hunting population. This would correct the
problem, but create some additional ones, such as in what units
to report the results.
Instead, the data were analyzed and key findings reported
separately for residents and non-residents. The results of the
cluster analysis also helped to understand residence because it
showed its effects combined with other study variables.
Questionnaire Content
The questionnaire (Appendix A) first asked how long and how much
the respondent had hunted and how hunting compared to their other
recreation activities.
The next section asked about specific aspects of their most
recent elk hunting trip in Montana, including to which hunting
area(s) the trip was made, trip length, equipment used, elk seen
and taken (if any), and whether a guide was employed.
The most recent trip was selected because the hunters would be
likely to remember it well. However, the most recent trip might
not represent peoples' trips over the season. For example, one
would expect a high proportion of hunters who killed an elk
during the season to have gotten it on their most recent elk
hunting trip. The difference between early and later trips could
be studied using the hunter baseline data, which contained
information on all hunting trips taken during the season.
The next section asked hunters about the social setting on their
last trip -- how many other hunters they saw, whether this was
more or fewer than expected, and if other hunters affected their
enjoyment. Hunters could have affected not only the elk
population, but each other, competing for game or disrupting
others' hunting. The social setting also could have had many
positive effects; sharing the experience with friends or family
is a central reason why people like to hunt.
Hunters were then asked to rate the importance of 16 reasons for
choosing to hunt in that area. The cluster analysis used to
define hunter types was conducted using a subset of these
responses, grouping together hunters who responded similarly
across the items. The resulting subgroups of hunters were
compared on other variables such as type of equipment used and
place of residence to define the similarities and differences
among these hunter types .
Data needed for the economic analyses included distance
traveled, time and money spent to reach the hunting area, and the
maximum amount people said they'd be willing to pay for the trip
beyond actual expenses. Two variations asked the maximum amount
they'd pay to double the chance of taking a six-point or better
bull elk or to see half as many hunters as they actually did.
Two questions were used to define the sample for the economic
analyses. Respondents were asked if hunting was the main reason
for making this trip away from home and if they were hunting
primarily in one area.
Information on the perceived availability and use of substitute
sites was collected for the travel cost estimates. The issue of
resource substitutability has been a focus in the recreation
literature for nearly two decades (Moss and Lamphear, 1970;
Christensen and Yoesting, 1977; Baumgartner and Heberlein,
1981). In one of the better studies on substitutability, Shelby
(undated) studied hunting on New Zealand fishing areas to see if
they were true substitutes based only not on physical
characteristics but in the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of
the angler populations.
A full study of substitutability was not the goal of the Hunter
Preference Study, but we asked hunters if they were hunting their
favorite area, and whether they knew of any comparable elk
hunting areas in Montana.
These questions viewed substitute settings in an unconstrained
format; it was necessary to know what other hunting area(s) they
might actually have visited, presumably constrained by the same
factors as the trip they actually took. A series of questions
asked where respondents might have hunted if they had to hunt
elsewhere .
The questionnaire's next section measured the acceptability of
six management actions designed to maintain a diversity of elk
hunting opportunities in the state. Hunters indicated whether
they favored the option, did not favor it but would accept it,
would not accept it, or would need more information to respond.
The Department solicits public comment on regulation changes, but
may hear primarily from the special interest groups and
specialized hunters. Surveys of broader study popultaions such as
this solicit comment from hunters whose views usually may not be
heard, a good sounding board for potential management actions.
Demographic and other background information collected included
age, gender, residence, employment status, education, income, and
membership in hunting, sport, or environmental clubs or
organizations. These variables have been useful in predicting
hunter' desired experiences and management preferences.
The last page of the questionnaire was provided for hunters to
write anything else about hunting that they wanted to tell
managing agencies. Their responses, grouped into categories, are
not only colorful but insightful, greatly increasing our
understanding of Montana elk hunters.
Questionnaire Administration
An adaptation of Dillman's (1978) Total Design Method was used to
conduct the mail survey. An attractive questionnaire booklet,
cover letter, and a stamped, addressed return envelope were
mailed to the sample in January, 1987. A postcard reminder was
sent one week later. On February 17, a followup letter and second
copy of the booklet was sent to people who had not responded.
This method typically yields response rates of at least 70
percent .
RESULTS
Response Rates
Table 1 shows the number of survey forms returned by hunters who
hunted in each area. The target sample size was achieved or
approached for 16 of the 18 areas (the two areas in eastern
Montana were hunted by only .1 and .3 percent of the sample so
those results will not be reported) .
Of the 8,000 questionnaires mailed, 5,000 were completed and
returned. Of the remaining, 121 people said they didn't hunt in
1986, 50 people returned the survey saying they were not going to
participate, and 150 letters were undeliverable .
The overall response rate was 65 percent, somewhat lower than the
overall response rate for the Angler Preference Survey (81
percent), but acceptable for mail questionnaires.
A non-response check was not conducted, but some of the hunters
who did not complete the survey probably didn't hunt in 1986.
Table 1. Number of questionnaires returned by people whose most
recent elk hunting trip took place in one of the 16
target areas .
Hunting
Area Number and Name
Completed Ouestionnair-ea
1.
Libby
267
13.
Bob Marshall
109
14.
Augusta
248
17.
Fort Peck
9
19.
Superior
240
20.
Flint Creek
336
24.
Butte
108
25.
Townsend
200
26.
Little Belts
69
30.
Pioneers
284
31.
Tobacco Roots
182
32.
Bridgers
113
38.
Tendoys
79
39.
Gravellys
146
40.
Madisons
271
41.
Gardiner
293
42.
Absarokas
112
43.
Missouri Breaks
28
TOTAL :
3,114
Also, it was expected that hunters not as interested in
management issues would be less likely to complete the
questionnaire. The cover letter emphasized that the results
would be used to improve hunting management.
One of the reasons for conducting the study was to learn more
about the views and behaviors of people who may not testify at
hearings, attend public meetings, or write to the Department
about management concerns. In this context, the response rate of
65 percent was excellent. However, the 35 percent who didn't
respond may differ from the respondents in other ways, too.
Another possibility is that hunters may have been less likely to
return the questionnaire because they were just asked about their
last hunting trip, while the anglers were asked about about their
most recent visit to a specific river. Surveys of specific
populations may obtain higher response rates than surveys of
broader, less well-defined populations.
Description of the Hunters
This paper reports the results for the 3,114 hunters whose most
recent trip was in one of the 16 hunting areas. It's first
important to get a good idea of the hunters surveyed -- where
they're from, their hunting history, and some basic demographic
information.
* 69 percent lived in Montana (Table B-1 in Appendix B shows
that the rate for individual hunting areas varied from 56
percent in the Libby area to 86 percent near Butte
* 95 percent were men and their (median) age was 38 (non-
resident hunters average age was 43, compared to 37 years
old for the residents)
* 66 percent were employed full-time, 7 percent part-time, 9
percent retired, and 6 percent unemployed
* 33 percent finished high school, 28 percent attended
college, 14 percent obtained a degree, 5 percent did some
postgraduate work, and 8 percent had a postgraduate degree
* Their household income before taxes varied widely, with 4
percent under $5,000 and 7 percent over $75,000. The median
income bracket was $25,000 - $30,000
* They had been hunting for 10 years (median), residents an
average of 15 years and non-residents an average of 8 years
* They hunted a median of 10 days per year, nearly all of
which were in Montana
16 percent said elk hunting was their favorite outdoor
recreation activity, 49 percent said it was one of their
favorite, and 34 percent said it was one of many outdoor
recreation activities in which they participated (Table B-2
shows that these proportions varied from 7 percent of the
Bridger area hunters to 23 percent of those who hunted in
the Superior or Tendoy areas
30 percent of the residents were members of hunting, sport,
or environmental organizations, compared to 60 percent of
the non-residents
Most Recent Hunting Trip
Much of the questionnaire asked about respondents' most recent
elk hunting trip. Because this was the "product" for which values
were developed, this trip needed to be described in detail.
* 84 percent of the hunters had taken their most recent trip
to the hunting area during the 1986 season, showing that the
sampling method was successful in reaching current hunters
* 31 percent were making their first visit to the hunting area
but the median years hunting the target area was 5 (Table B-
3 shows the results by hunting area)
* Residents had been hunting the area an average of four years
longer than had the non-residents
* 13 percent hunted for one day or less on the most recent
trip, while 12 percent hunted for 2 days, 9 percent for
three, and 18 percent for 4 or 5 days; median trip length
was 5 days (non-residents' trips averaged two days longer
than residents' trips)
* They hunted for 8 hours a day (median)
* 99 percent hunted with a rifle
* 32 percent of the non-resident hunters hired an outfitter or
guide, compared to just over 1 percent of the residents
(Table B-4 shows the percentages by hunting area)
* 18 percent were successful in taking a elk (20 percent of
the non-residents and 17 percent of the residents); Table
B-5 shows the percentages by hunting area)
* 31 percent of the hunters who hired an outfitter or guide
harvested an elk, compared to 17 percent of the hunters who
didn't hire a guide.
10
81 percent of the elk taken by Montana residents were
antlered, compared to 78 percent of the elk taken by non-
residents (Table B-6 shows the results by area)
Of the residents' antlered elk, 35 percent had one point on
side 1 and 16 percent had six points on side 1 (Table B-7
shows the results by area)
Of the nonresidents' antlered elk, 28 percent had one point
on side 1 and 22 percent had six points on side 1
40 percent of the non-residents and 33 percent of the
residents harvested other game on their most recent elk
hunting trip
66 percent of the other animals taken were mule deer, 30
percent white tailed deer, and 2 percent bear
The average (median) number of miles walked was 6
13 percent were alone in their vehicle, 41 percent were
with one other hunter, 29 percent with 2 others, and 12
percent with 3 others
Percent of residents and non-residents who said they used
the following types of equipment on their most recent trip;
Dirt bike/ATV
Horse
Binoculars
Topographic maps
Backpacking tent
Wall tent
Snowmobile
Elk bugle
Camera
Spotting scope
Trailer
Motor home
10 percent said they didn't see any other hunters; the
median number of others seen was 9 (mean number seen was 17)
Residents
Non-iresidents
4
4
22
37
80
86
29
50
6
14
16
30
2
1
14
17
29
65
22
31
15
14
3
5
11
* 49 percent said the number of other hunters seen was about
as many as expected, while 34 percent said it was more and
17 percent said it was fewer than expected
* One-third of the sample said that the other hunters affected
their own enjoyment of the trip (Table B-8 shows
these results by hunting area)
* If hunters were affected by others, the most common reason
was not enough space/too many people (which comprised 24
percent of the responses made), noise or visual intrusions
(22 percent), less solitude (11 percent), competition for
game (11 percent), and road hunting (9 percent)
Desired Experiences
Hunters' behaviors and management preferences should have been
based in part on the type of experience they were seeking. The
operational definition of this was hunters' reasons for choosing
to hunt where they did on their most recent trip (Table 2).
Table 2 lists hunters' reasons for hunting, in order of
importance (computed by adding together the percentage who said
each reason was "very important" or "important) . Of the five
most important reasons people hunted where they did, only one was
directly related to elk populations. This demonstrates that the
presence of elk, though obviously critical, was just part of the
overall elk hunting experience. Hunters valued the opportunities
to be outdoors, alone or with few others, in a natural setting
with pleasant scenery. Social reasons for hunting, such as being
with one's family or going hunting with friends, were far down
the list, as were hunting close to home and good road access. Of
the two items traditionally viewed as the main products of elk
hunting opportunities, hunting for meat was rated as a more
important reason than taking a trophy.
Residents and non-residents differed on many of their responses
(Graphs 1-12). For example. Residents rated as more important
good road access, hunting close to home, hunting for meat, and
hunting with their family. Forty-three percent of the residents
said hunting close to home was either not very or not at all
important, showing that Montanans were willing to travel some
distance for what they perceived to be a high quality elk
hunting opportunity.
Non-residents rated as more important solitude, testing hunting
skills, getting a trophy animal, viewing the scenery, being in a
natural setting, getting away from other hunters, and being in
rugged country. Montana's natural environment and its
opportunities for solitude were one of the draws for out-of-state
hunters who may live in places not having comparable hunting.
12
Table 2. Importance of 16 reasons for choosing hunting location (results
in percent, listed in order of importance, with major break
points indicated by dashed lines).
Reason:
To Be Outdoors
Many Elk in the Area
Be In Natural Setting
For the Solitude
View The Scenery
Not Very Not At All
Very Important Important Important Important
57
37
4
2
30
52
15
3
31
49
13
7
36
43
16
5
30
49
14
6
Past Hunting Good Here
For the Meat
Avoid Other Hunters
23
32
30
50
17
10
36
21
10
38
21
11
Test Hunting Skills
Be In Rugged Country
Hunt With Family
17
20
22
9
27
18
4
32
13
0
19
29
Hunt Close to Home
Good Road Access
Where Friends Were Going
Take a Trophy Elk
Special Permit for Area
17
11
14
15
9
26
24
33
31
34
23
27
23
36
20
34
30
12
18
61
13
LU
Q.
O
i_
I-
•" DC
o
c
03
o
Q.
E
c
o
"5
to
0)
QC
c
o
c
Q>
;o
CO
a>
QC
(0
c
14
I
Q.
<
a
O
03
0
o
>
o
D)
c
C
0
H— •
■D
c
CO
J
Q)
X
DC
o
>
^^
JD
0
O
c
03
+j
i_
O
Q.
E
c
0)
;o
w
o
GC
c
CO
15
CM
X
o.
<
o
CO
c
D)
o
c
0)
CO w
0 0
DC
(P
O
i
-I— »
O
a
E
I
CO
0)
QC
(0
c
CO
I
16
CO
X
Q.
<
o
CO
^,.
<D
C
3
I
^
0)
^
-•-•
o
c
"O
T3
CO
O
0)
>
<
tr
O
0
O
B
o
Q.
E
c
0)
(i>
cc
(0
c
CO
17
X
Q.
<
CC
o
0)
'5
a>
(L
(0
c
CO
lA
18
Q.
<
>
^.
(D
C
0
O
CO
U)
>
c
o
>
c
0
0
■o
>
CO
0
CL
O
c
CC
+-'
o
a
E
c
;d
CO
DC
03
c
(0
19
c
<»
;o
"5
0)
cc
(0
c
20
X
<
o
c
V
;d
w
o
cc
<o
c
c
O
I
21
CO
X
Q.
<
a.
o
0)
3
O
CO
>
o
c
^ 0)
o :g
o
a
E
c
0)
;d
w
QC
n3
c
nj
c
o
22
0)
X
Q.
<
o
0
E
o
o >
O ^
0
U) "D
CQ QC
O jD
0
o
c
03
-I—'
i_
o
Q.
c
CD
■D
CO
CD
QC
c
o
c
■D
CO
OJ
CL
(T3
c
c;3
c
o
c
o
00
o
CD
o
23
O
O
o
I
<
QC
o
c
g
O
■D
>
Q)
o
O)
c
D)
0
D
■o
cc
CO
O
0
DC
G)
>
O
JD
o
Q.
E
c
0)
55
Q)
DC
<0
c
(0
24
X
Q.
<
CC
o
CO
0)
E
0)
E
03
LL
>>
o
^
c
^
0
.^
■a
D)
CO
C
0)
-♦— •
IX
c
D
>.
X
-Q
0
O
c
c\3
-I— •
O
Q.
E
c
]0
W
0)
CE
03
C
03
C
o
CM
25
I
Q.
<
O
Factor Analysis
A factor analysis was conducted to explore the underlying
structure of the patterns of correlations among the 16 reasons
for hunting. Factor analysis studies the intercorrelation matrix
of the variables, searching for variables that are strongly
intercorrelated with each other, but not with the rest of the
variables. The resulting orthogonal (independent) factors are
composed of variables that fit together; when one reason was
rated as important, so were the others.
A principal components analysis with varimax rotation yielded
four factors having eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and accounting
for 52 percent of the variance.
The first factor was called Nature or Aesthetics because nearly
all of its items related to valued characteristics of a natural
environment. Accounting for 22 percent of the variance, this
factor was composed of being in a natural setting (.80), the
scenery (.78), being outdoors (.72), rugged country (.66),
solitude (.61), avoid other hunters (.53), and weakly by test
hunting skills (.39). (The numbers in parentheses are factor
loadings, a kind of item-factor correlation coefficient).
The second factor, accounting for 12 percent of the variance, was
called a Hunting Specialist factor because its variables all
related directly to hunting, and specifically to obtaining a
trophy. This factor was loaded by the presence of many elk (.71),
getting a trophy (.66), good past hunting in the area (.57), and
testing hunting skills (.45).
The third factor was called Generalist Local because it was
loaded by only two items, hunting close to home (.72), and
hunting for meat (.68), valued highly by many Montana hunters.
The fourth factor was called Social because it was loaded by
hunting with friends (.62), good road access (.60), hunting with
family (.51), and having a special permit (.47).
Factor analysis was useful because it grouped variables together
based on their correlations, neatly summarizing complex
interrelationships. But what we'd really like to do is group
people (not variables) together based on what were the most and
least important reasons why they hunted. That is the goal of the
cluster analysis discussed later.
Here is a brief description of the questions pertaining to
economic value. Loomis (1987) contains the full set of results
and a discussion. The numbers in the two reports may not match
perfectly because different truncating levels or sample
delimiters could have been used.
26
* 93 percent said that hunting was the main reason for
taking the trip away from home and 84 percent said they
visited just one main hunting area on the trip
* The average distance to the hunting area from home was 121
miles for residents and 742 miles for non-residents
* The median amount personally spent on the trip by
respondents was $100.00 but the mean was $481.00, with 15
percent spending $1000.00 or more
* The total trip costs varied widely depending on where
people lived; the average for residents was $113.00,
compared to $1,287.00 for non-residents
* 71 percent of the resident hunters and 52 percent of the
nonresident hunters said the trip was worth more than they
had actually spent
A full discussion of resource substitutes is contained in John
Loomis ' report, but here is some basic information.
* 63 percent planned to continue hunting the area as
frequently as they did, 15 percent more, and 19 percent less
frequently
* 27 percent said they were hunting their favorite area in
Montana, 39 percent said it was one of their favorites, 25
percent said it was one of many places they hunt, and 8
percent said they prefer to hunt elsewhere (Table B-9 shows
these results by hunting area)
* 32 percent of the hunters who'd hunted in the area before
said it was their favorite area, compared to just 14 percent
of the first-time area visitors
* 63 percent said there were other Montana elk hunting areas
that provided a comparable hunting experience (Table B-10
shows the results by area)
* 42 percent said that hunting in the alternate area was about
the same as where they hunted, while 13 percent said the
hunting was worse and 16 percent said it was better
Management Preferences
Several questions addressed hunting management issues. The first
set of questions asked hunters about access roads used for
hunting; Tables B-11 to B-13 show the responses by residence.
* 58 percent said the number of roads open to vehicle use in
the area was about right, 10 percent said there were too
27
few, and 22 percent said there were too many roads for
hunting purposes
* 33 percent said the number of open roads had not changed in
the area in recent years, 24 percent said they were fewer
open roads, 13 percent said there were more, and 28 percent
were not sure
* 53 percent said hunters should be able to retrieve game with
vehicles only on open roads, 31 percent said using closed
roads should be allowed, and 22 percent said hunters should
be allowed to use vehicles off roads to retrieve game
The other set of management questions presented hunters with six
hunting management scenarios and asked whether they would favor
the policy, not favor it but accept it, would not accept it, or
would need more information to make a decision. The specific
management options included on the questionnaire were provided by
the DFWP ' s Wildlife Division so the results should be useful
immediately to wildlife and recreation managers. Here is the
introduction to the question, the six scenarios, and the
responses (reported separately for resident and non-resident
hunters). Tables B-14 to B-19 show the results by area.
"Managing for a diversity of opportunities to hunt
elk may require more hunting regulations. However,
these regulations would restrict your hunting
opportunities. We'd like to know your opinions on
the following types of potential regulations to
maintain a diversity of hunting opportunities in
Montana . "
A. No special permit to hunt bull elk would be needed. There
would be considerable competition for bull elk but no
restrictions other than having a license. You could hunt
every year but your odds of getting a bull would be less
than 1 in 10.
Residents
Non-
-residents
Favor
39
20
Do Not favor
but Would Accept
24
24
Not Acceptable
17
29
Would need more
information
21
26
28
An unlimited number of bull elk permits would be available.
You would be able to get a permit every year but you would
have to choose the one district where you would hunt and not
be able to hunt in any other districts.
Residents
Non-
-residents
Favor
18
26
Do Not favor
but Would Accept
32
34
Not Acceptable
39
28
Would need more
information
10
11
A limited number of bull elk permits would be available
through a drawing in June. You would have to choose the one
district where you would hunt and not be able to hunt in any
other districts. You might get a permit only once every 5
years, but if you did obtain a permit you would have a much
better chance (than 1 in 10) of getting a bull.
Eos.
idents
Non-
- residents
Favor
10
18
Do Not favor
but Would Accept
18
24
Not Acceptable
63
45
Would need more
information
8
12
29
D. The taking of bull elk would be subject to point
regulations. Hunters could shoot only bulls that had at
least one antler with 2 or more points .
Residents
Non-
-residents
Favor
41
53
Do Not favor
but Would Accept
32
28
Not Acceptable
19
12
Would need more
information
7
7
E. The taking of bull elk would be subject to point
regulations. Hunters could shoot only bulls that had at
least one antler with 5 or more points.
Residents
Non-
-residents
Favor
10
16
Do Not favor
but Would Accept
22
29
Not Acceptable
60
46
Would need more
information
7
8
30
To reduce pressure on bulls, antlerless elk permit holders
would be allowed to hunt only antlerless elk and only in the
hunting district where their permit was valid.
Residents
Non-
- residents
Favor
57
57
Do Not favor
but Would Accept
22
22
Not Acceptable
14
12
Would need more
information
7
8
Two of the six options (D and F) were the most-favored among
both residents and non-residents. Hunters generally did not
appear to favor regulations that would restrict their ability to
hunt what or where they wanted each season. Even the non-
residents, who were generally more trophy oriented, did not favor
taking only five-point or better bulls.
The resident hunters did not object to unlimited permits even if
their chances of taking a bull were greatly reduced. This is
consistent with other data showing that residents were more
concerned with getting meat than getting a trophy.
The proportion of hunters who said they would need more
information also was valuable, suggesting that expanded
educational campaigns might not be effective for some of the
management options.
Hunter Types; Results of the Cluster Analysis
The cluster analysis was conducted on seven of the 16 reasons for
choosing to hunt a given hunting area on their last trip. The
seven items were selected because initial clustering runs and
past research (Allen, 1987) suggested that they would be the most
efficient variables identifying distinct types of hunters--each
of whom hunted for different reasons. For example, "To be
outdoors," one of the 16 reasons for hunting, was rated as very
important by just about everyone, so there was no variation in
response .
The "not sure" responses were treated as missing values for the
cluster procedure, resulting in a sample size of about 1500 for
clustering. This trade-off was accepted because there was really
31
no basis for including "Not Sure" responses in the interval level
scaling system needed for the cluster analysis.
The SPSSx Quick Cluster program was used because of the large
number of cases analyzed. This method, designed for use on large
data files, uses a nearest centroid sorting technique to assign
cases to clusters based on Euclidean distance from the case to
the cluster centers (Norusis, 1986). Cluster centers were not
chosen a priori, but were selected from well-distanced cases
There were three main criteria for choosing the final number of
clusters: the number of cases in each cluster had to be large
enough (approximately 100) to permit economic analysis; the
clusters had to make sense conceptually and define distinct
hunter subgroups; and a parsimonious solution was preferred (the
fewer clusters the better) .
The Quick Cluster program did not select any specific number of
clusters statistically, so the procedure was run for cluster
sizes of 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to see which cluster size provided the
best division of subgroups.
A final cluster size of four was chosen. This offered a better
distinction among subgroups than fewer clusters, while more
clusters did not add critical information. Analyzing four hunter
types also corresponded well to Bryan's four levels of hunter
specialization. The hunter types are specific to this set of
variables; using a different set of questions to run the
clustering procedure could have resulted in a different set of
hunter types .
Figure 2 shows the scores of each hunter subgroup on each of the
seven clustering variables. Both the absolute location of each
cluster center on the scale (Very Important to Not At All
Important) and the position of each subgroup relative to the
other three groups are noteworthy. Here are descriptions of the
four hunter types, including which three reasons for hunting they
said were most important.
Nature Hunters -- Hunters in this group said they were hunting to
be outdoors, for the solitude, to be close to home, and to get
away from other hunters. Seventy-two percent were Montana
residents (Table 3). Hunting for meat, enjoying the scenery,
being in a natural area, and being with their family were all
less important.
Their four most important reasons could apply to a wide variety
of outdoor experiences in a natural environment -- not just
hunting. They were avid outdoors enthusiasts who likely
participated in many recreational activities (only 13 percent
said elk hunting was their favorite outdoor recreation activity) .
32
U)
c
o
0)
M—
Q.
^ f^
>
CO
c
1-
o
i_
CO
0)
CT3
■+-•
0
DC
c -Q
cc
O
Q.
E
<
H
K
O
I-
z
<
QC
O
a
2
> z
c= <
UJ H
> C
^ <
< GC
§1
0)
Q-
i_
<i>
^^
c
3
I
CO
0)
0)
k.
2
3
(0
o
Z
u.
t
>
k-
JC
a>
a
o
c
k-
3
»-
I
><
JZ
a
0)
o
E
H
o
I
•
^
<0
0)
2
k-
0)
CO
c
—
3
Jf
I
CO
«>
ra
^*
0)
CO
0)
S
H
+
0)
1
T3
3
^^
CO
O
03
CO
k-
0)
c
(U
CO
O
CO
o
o
o
<
•o
CO
o
cr
u
>
33
22
12
21
13
17
26
15
20
24
18
21
16
Table 3. Similarities and differences among the four hunter types
( in percent) .
Meat Trophy Nature
Characteristic General is ts Hunters Hunters Hunters
Percent Residents 69 88 48 72
Percent Who Said
Hunting Was Their
Favorite Activity
Percent Who Hunt
1-5 Days Per Year
Percent Who Took
an Elk
Percent Who Didn't
See An Elk 17 26 19 24
Percent Who Said
Trip Was Worth More
than Actual Expenses 67 62 64 70
Percent Aged 11-20 12 14 9 7
Percent Who Used A
Guide or Outfitter
on the Trip 13 4 20 8
Percent Who Said
Other Hunters Affected
Their Enjoyment 40 29 32 32
Percent Who Said
There Were Too Many
Roads in the Area 27 16 18 24
Percent Who Said
Hunters Should Use
Vehicles Only on Open
Roads to Retrieve Game 60 39 51 59
34
Their search for a quiet, natural area away from other hunters
suggested that they hunt away from roads and wouldn't favor
increased road access. Thirty-six percent of the hunters in this
group said there were too many roads in the area they were
hunting (Table 3), a much higher percentage than in the other
clusters. Similarly, 59 percent said that hunters should be able
to use vehicles to retrieve game only on open roads (Table 3).
General ist Hunters — Their most important reason for hunting was
being outdoors, followed by hunting where game was abundant, for
the solitude, for the meat, and because they'd had success
hunting there before. Of the hunters in this cluster, 69 percent
were Montana residents.
Their reasons for hunting were much more harvest-related than
hose of Cluster One, suggesting that this group contained more
serious hunters for whom hunting may not be as interchangeable
with other activities. The highest percentage of the four
clusters said that elk hunting was their favorite activity
(Table 3), and they saw and killed more elk than any other
cluster .
Their views on roads were similar to those of the Nature
hunters, but less strong; 27 percent said that their hunting area
had too many roads, and 60 percent said that only open roads
should be used by vehicles to retrieve game.
Trophy Hunters -- This was the only cluster that rated getting a
trophy as more important than getting meat. Avoiding other
hunters was more important than it was for the other clusters,
probably to decrease competition for elk.
Their most important reasons for hunting where interviewed were
to be where game was abundant, be with friends, get a trophy
elk, to be outdoors, and to be with their families. Of the
hunters in this cluster, 48 percent were Montana residents and 52
percent were nonresidents, the highest proportion among the four
types. Twenty-one percent said elk hunting was their favorite
activity.
These hunters had a more favorable attitude toward access roads;
only 18 percent said there were too many where they hunted.
Fifty-one percent felt only open roads should be used by
vehicles to retrieve game.
Meat Hunters -- This group said that hunting for meat was their
most important reason for hunting, followed by being where game
was abundant, hunting close to home, being outdoors, and because
they'd had good success there before.
This group valued hunting for meat more than did the generalist
hunters, and placed far less value on trophies. They rated
35
solitude, being outdoors, enjoying the scenery, being in a
natural area, and being in rugged terrain as less important than
did any of the other types. These were still rated as moderately
important, however. Of the hunters in this cluster, 88 percent
were Montana residents, the highest proportion of any cluster.
Their views on roads were similar to those of Trophy hunters, but
slightly more moderate; 16 percent said their hunting area
contained too many roads, and 39 percent agreed that only open
roads should be used by vehicles when retrieving game. The lowest
percentage (12 percent) said elk hunting was their favorite
outdoor recreation activity.
Cluster Validation
It's desirable to assess how well-defined and separated the
clusters are. One recommended way to explore and validate cluster
analyses was to see if the resulting groups differ on external
measures — ones not used directly for the clustering procedure.
(Aldenderfer and Blashfield 1984). Because the development of
hunter types was based on a specific framework, we expected many
of these additional characteristics to fit well with past
descriptions, helping to define each cluster more precisely.
Table 3 shows some key similarities and differences among the
four clusters. The four hunter types agreed on some management
scenarios, but disagreed on others (Graphs 13-18).
The cluster analysis was valuable because it provided a fine-
tuning of the economic estimates. The resulting hunter types
should help us to better understand broad ranges of clientele and
their management preferences.
CONCLUSIONS
The Hunter Preference Survey revealed much about the attitudes
and behaviors of resident and non-resident hunters in Montana.
The primary purpose was to define the elk hunting experiences for
which economic values were being estimated, but the information
gained should have many other management uses. This report
summarized the principal findings; more in-depth analyses would
further explore the relationships among variables studied to gain
a better understanding of elk hunters in Montana.
36
c
X
Cl
0
CO
c
0)
o
LU
_ a; o
13
c^
"o
CD
Q.
CO
C
03
0
o
CO
c
o
UJ Q
CO
CD
DQ
c
0
CO
■a
DC O
o
0>
n
cd
♦-
a
0)
o
o
<
♦-
o
iO
Z
w
0>
k~
0}
r
c
3
D
J.
I
0)
(0
3
■*-'
a>
(TJ
Cl
2
z
CO
k.
<u
c
<u
O
CO
B
c
a
o
ID
CO
37
X
Q.
<
CC
o
Q)
n
03
1— -•— '
03 O
03
XD 'Z
>
> -^
<
CO
>^Q
CO
^
-»— •
O <D
E
LU§
CD
-•— »
CL
E^
_N^
i_ c
0) O
LU
Q_
■4— »
•^ C
D
CD D
DQ
O X
■D
"D -a
(1)
^~V ^a>B
•4— •
3 D
E
O O
O O
CO
k.
0)
c
(0
a>
2
(0
k.
♦-
c
3
I
0)
k.
z
o
(0
>
(0
(0
^
^
a>
c
0)
c
I
a
o
O
ID
38
CO
0 I- LU
Q- O -
= -b 3
D CO OQ
■a (1) .9
■*-< >t -^
E O 0)
— ' — H-
<
1
CO
^ [
^
0)
n
a
a.
0)
o
o
<
o
z
CO
0)
c
3
I
TO
CO
0)
c
3
I
3
0)
c
0)
O
c
3
I
>.
xz
a
o
ID
o
CO
o
o
o
in
39
X
Q.
<
o
^ o
03
I- ^
-4— •
CO ~
i2 ^ CO
Z5
CD
0)
>
-«— '
c
c
O
<
CD
■1— »
o
o
c
O
sz.
-♦— »
CO
CO
03
T3
CD
D
_J
O
-1— •
O
<
c
"o
CL
CD
O
0)
u
o
<
♦*
o
CO
z
CO
0)
0)
r
c
3
3
J.
I
0)
W
3
"*""
0)
(TJ
a
?
■ 0)
o
ri
o
. <
^
(1>
c
O
c
I
C
a
o
ID
40
■o ^
03 O
I (D
^ >
cC u_
(
1- -c
-♦— •
^^
CO
CO ^
o
> t:^
Q_
— c
o<
CD
0)
o
o ^
^
"^ -•— '
CO w
(C
T3 0)
D -1
O ^
o <
(0
0)
c
I
CO ;^
0) (0
c
O
c
3
I
a
o
ID
41
I
Ql
<
O
"O
i:
c
o
■
O
>.
CO
c
O
0)
u
J:^
o
o
LU
k-
X
CO
CO
E
CO
O
1—
Q
■o
CD
0)
CD
CL
c
-1— •
Ji^
<
—
L-
LU
>
CD
CO
c
CL
CO
O
0
V.-
-1— •
0)
c
_)
c
<
CO
0)
c
I
w
0)
CO
*^
c
I
0)
♦^
CO
Z
o
CO
>
(0
CO
li.
k-
<u
c
a>
«
c
3
I
SI
Q.
O
o
ID
42
REFERENCES
Allen, S. 1987. Phase II Report; The Impacts of the Garrison -
Taft 5QQ-kV Transmission Line on Elk Hunting Opportunities
in Western Montana. Report prepared for the Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Helena.
Baumgartner, R. and Heberlein, T.A. 1981. Process, Goal and
Social Interaction Differences in Recreation: What Makes an
Activity Substitutable? Leisure Sciences, 8(2), 112-122.
Brown, P.J., Hautaluoma, J.E., and McPhail, S.M. 1977. Colorado
Deer Hunting Experiences. In Transactions of the Forty-
second North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management
Institute .
Bryan, H. 1979. Conflict in the Great Outdoors. Sociological
Studies No. 4, Bureau of Public Administration, University
of Alabama.
Christensen, J.E. and Yoesting, D.R. 1977. The Substitutability
Concept: A Need for Further Development. Journal of Leisure
Research. 9(3), 188-207.
Driver, B.L. 1985. Specifying What Is Produced by Management of
Wildlife by Public Agencies. Leisure Sciences, 7(1),
281-295.
Dillman, D. 1979. The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley and
Sons .
Duffield, J. 1987. The Economic Value of Elk Hunting in
Montana . Report prepared for Montana Department of Hunt,
Wildlife and Parks, Helena.
Hautaluoma, J.E., and Brown, P.J. 1978. Attributes of the Deer
Hunting Experience: A Cluster-Analytic Study. Journal of
Leisure Research, Hi, 271-287.
Hautaluoma, J.E., Brown, P.J., and Battle, N.L. 1981. Elk Hunter
Consumer Satisfaction Patterns. In Forest and Hunting
area Recreation; Research Update. St Paul, MN: University of
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station.
Hendee, J.C. A Multiple-Satisfaction Approach to Game Management.
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2, 104-113.
Loomis, J. Elk Hunting Preference Economics Report (Draft
10/27/87). Report prepared for Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, Helena.
43
Moss, W.T. and Lamphear, S.C. 1970. Substitutability of
Recreational Activities in Meeting Stated Needs and Drives
of the Visitor. Environmental Education. 1(4), 129-131.
Potter, D.R., Hendee, J.C., and Clark, R.N. 1973. Hunting
Satisfaction: Game, Guns, or Nature? In Transactions of
the Forty-second North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management
Institute .
Shelby, B. undated. Resource and Activity Substitutes for
Recreational Salmon Hunting in New Zealand. Paper presented
to annual meeting of the Western Association of Recreation
Professionals at Sleeping Child Hot Springs, Montana, 198- .
Stankey, G.H., Lucas, R.C., and Ream, R.R. Relationships Between
Hunting Success and Satisfaction. In Transactions of the
Forty-second North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Inst.
44
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE AND CODING MANUAL
<
z
<
^
^
>
O
z
H
Z
K
<!9
> w
C ^ £
tl >- w
J< o
^ n c
_ 91 Q.
a 4i o
3 3
C «,
— — 4,
oc ^
a
•) »J o
V — •
- r. £
■ ■
e
■ •
-> ■ >
« — -^
\- ■
£ C
O •
C w
w aw
— (^ — 10 —
'•J I-
3 Z
— «
— 3
■ •
1 b
o a
o a. » ^ n
a. b a
it wt £ it
«f w 4^ w », —
w - o ti Q
« >- ■ £ -. —
— O — w t>
a. > a. o i, ••
a ~ ti
w CCS
— >~ « 3 O •
b ■ ■ £ >. «l
O b
> <M <M o o c
b rsi
O.^ o
>. o
3 f e-
o ^
• oa
t ti
o ■
■o ■
t -• °
n 3 •=
3 i S^'
O j_
I o o
o
i, a
« o >-
> & ■
3 b
a 3 «
a. —
(/) u u </)
e c £ '-.
e £
•- 3
e o
3 > o ^
3 —
O -
2 £
— e
• « :
- s
cere
S I c -
- £ ■
» - e
III
nnnn nnnn nan n nnnn
DDDD nnnn nnnn nnnn
nnnn nnnn nnnn nnnn
nnnn nnnn nnnn nnnn
nnnn nnnn nnnn nnnn
> a
e a
' 3 a
: .a ■ c
- e
— 0
a. r.
o e ■
9 — b ■ £
t 1
> c
X C
- 8 - £
: £ — I.
0 E
•c «« c c
it ^ ^
*• 0 I
■c a. I
o c
!16
O B > C
^ a o
. - «i ■>
■ » u
• k. X e
■ — •
I* • — ■»
C 3 — ■
w w a 3
w 3 u
» a « >-
; 3 S C
X 0
K » T.
c o c
o c o
" f -
3 «
oe I. r*,
- . o a
a 1 *^ ^
~ "n -
jc ^ t-° '^
*^ •* ^ 3
I -f ' J
> 3 • C «l
- *" *| 3 £
a u o w
f a » r w
fc - a -D
C « £ C
^ •' a ■> 3
0, a. »
, » k o.
■ Sis:
— ti I. • -
a. O 3 _ -
O — - . w ?
•- - « o _
oc a. o c a.
3 O D. o a
o =• - c ;
>■ I- o _ =
a u o 3 —
■ K z o a.
— ti < 3 —
o <
f,
oe
c
c
3
•^
^
c
w
— X
1-
00 u
u z
= —
»
^
0
c
>
C
C
a
0
c
crt-
0
•o
m
3
z
e
e
3 S
^
01
a
3
9.
■w
It! X
t<
«
u.
0
c
t,
Ul
0
1- a
■
«
c
a
«
X —
00
b
r.
£
a
U 3
c
c^
b
a.
c
z u:
0
(-
oc
—
•O
ft
b
b
'
Ul <
G
= 1-
c
c
3
3
t- VI
a
c<
0
X
0
0
1
fl
3
3 C
.^
0
n -4
0 1<
« -•
>. &
c
M
tf)
£ «
K
o
«
^
u
li «
c
3 C
«
0
& «
00 0
w
Ck
l»
>
t. V)
o
c
C «
« ft;
a.
c
A
t» ti
c o.
■ ii
!< >^
— w
c
•o
«a
O.
0
3 ti
0
• li
£
4f ««
3
c c
0
0
c
c ee
M w o —
X »
o
£ C
a
C w
a o
a 3 e
3 X £
r~ _ c
>■ ■ k.
^ 0 - O -
e a
" o
a •->
e e
o -■ e
-" o
O B
*i I, ii e
V £ G "O O
— „ o * -
O «l w
c c " ^ •
• * - -o
« A a . 11
w « w ^
*> C Ob
O. 0 ^ "
•* w 1» r a
e ^C -a -
X O^ O ft.
■ u 2 t> ■ •<
"•-'u «u So- •«■=•.
" *•- - O- -J3- »
»•» = , 33 ;"-°-»-
- : i - - ° • '. . .
•I 'O
■^ a
1 = -
-1» O— «—• O —
A £ c b b "o c
3 .. w ^ « *j
ac ->ti una — «i
2" Ou -- Ou
41 3a cwnaa
^ a — a * a
^ _ o - »
1. « »
« o u o o.
— > tl
3 " -^
> "O — w
— 0 00 -HOOD t*00
? O ?o f »
-"• -"• ;?„
■"« •"2 if"
■i.« S*-* -o-"-
"" " i - Sa^o
bco> «'eo> «>
X3 a -^3 a o*— a
D
0"
!j
UJ ^ _4„_(-.<f.j(-j(-j f-| «rf^ ll")UTUTiniiT-0O>0s3>0f^Nr^N CD CD cf- 0-&-
_l<j-00 I > I I I I I I I III i I I I I I I I I I I I I i I ; I II
►-"III o^■>^>ocDo^^<^>oc^o-^r-JnLO>o^^CD-•'1•NCDC^c•rJ*^omo^J<t>ococ■^«3•<3CDa•oru'.u"!s3^•CDC^— rjf-->o
a, -^ uT r>. -< ^ -• -H ^ r-i r-< ci r •< r-j k^ t ■"■ n:i r- "i r-i ro r-i n <:i- ^ ^ «r 't ut ut ut ut ut ~o >o >o o o r^ n r-. rv n n cd cd cd cc co co cc co c^ o^ o~ c^
<I<I
TOO
U -OO'H
CDorj-oorj-ocro!
n CDOT o-iuT or J oit-o n
-^ ! i I I I i I ; I ' I i I 1 I I I I ! i I i ! I I I
I c J ii~ (J- -• f -i n t LH >o N 03 1> o -< (i n <«• i;i -o n o -i r- '1 h- '- r' r-- ^^ ui o o t ut (> -^ ut ^ o r < >o n -^ f ■•■' t bT -o n co o r "> bT n 03 o~
ijt so ^. 03 cr- c- — r K :• T ijT o t^ 03 o o -• r i ri <r bT ^ n ro o o -• r>j h"" <?- bi o n oo a- •" -< r-j r-'^ «r bT <i n aj o o '-• r 4 r ■ <3- lt -c n m ch
in bj} UJ3 UT bT -^ -O -0 -0 -p •C -O <) <) >0 r^ N 1^ P;;. r ■ (^ N r^ h- N
r>55-55S>>55555-555>555555>55-5>55555555555555555>>>:>>>>>>>
ccr
OUT
n
o>o~o>or^
<r
■ z
Q<I
LiJI-
1-Z
20-
X z
2-
- lC-K
Qd Z
UJUJQD
• l->UJX
OZ K
ZDiIZi
> O-ILu
_j > a: !X OT Lu
uji:<r>>i-
oi z: Lu <r <i c
c: n > c Q lC
►-1- LL
iXli.-
K — iX
cct-
(;)i- ■
-. cn<r
(--•XiV
XK<I
LLt-
O U-tD
LlOZ
IG «
t- iXK
ZXIZ
ocLijr'
►lUJ
• r • • _i
>QjL CDCnLL —
■ <rLlJ-J- l-HO^
QQl-LUIo-ZZ
LU X _l>-"-*U
t-LTCDZLUGO Z
Zlii-"! LLLLl-C
XlQ-O) U- t-iCD
X QO'-'fJ'-'
O'LT-l-iUJlilLJt-UJ
>DU_1llQD!^X
CiX*^Hcncr>QG
UJ
I-
z
3
I
C-
■ aJ*
tnct:
U><I
U_JIU
clZo:
LOOC
Q
UJ-
tnr-
13 UJ
tn
UG
Cli.
■ ZiZi
ZCll-
o >
CllCZH
UJ cl\
• • sccsruj
«* UJ :>.
LLt-CD'-'
^^noHzaj
<I<IUJb.HI-
UJUJu.!-Zli
<i<i(-axQ
G
05- Z • UJ-
cccn— t-_JUJ
ca.:^- 2-_i
_j<ruirujiiiG-
■ DrciiJK-oDcr
LUD UL_i ZiIlLi:
cnGO^-i-JS ui
irzu.u<i_jG-ii:
o«-iG<ia:crz_j<r
en
^
(Si
UJ
■ u
UlU
• <i<r
• r u
• f-
C-UIlCQ
cnt-
c:Lr:<r<i
«z
UlUi G
LLJ
CLXiCX
L.r
<Z UI
UJ ■ o>
CIH
Q. • Z O-
ZUir-D
G CUJCrnQ
>-^-CG
U- UJUZZLl!
z ai
inujiiiCOOaJI-LJXCC
Z-J - uzxt-
'JGCCni-QUi
-< 'J3
zX3ii:<luju.
t-C/lUG
-- UHt-L.
CCCLZ.
t-cttnxtjuct-cci^-i
Ih-OUJh-LJUJ
LnUiCL-J
C t- _IO0.U. 3 CO- ZUI
:ii.o^ xixc
'.^ OUJ
1 CD E r * U C X
u.«l:u.
en
UJ
LJ
U
CI
Qt-
C2
LU
ZCD
z
1.0 <i
Z2
xo
(JlC
<rur
>z<r
UJLij-
xlli <r
■^zeuj
XD<:_j
TO. A
LH z:<t
LCD u.
DZO
*L.<ru
<ic;
LLlliJ
cccc
LULU
CQCQ
<rc:
iXCC
<rc
LLLL
oc
UCJ
• >
LU-
lC-J
• -Z<L-
* 301
<Z-i id
UJ1HU
li 2U
<ZOZj(Z
UJ Q-
«IUUJOQ
LUH Q'-i
K CTj I- C _J
_i-'_JOO
UJ
zg-
• K li
XZOLU
_IDI-
liJl >
UiX
>KGTll
zcnoo
<iLU_jci:
Et-Uh-
1x1
tr
Lu
I
Q
O
■ O
CD 'J
X ■
OlDt-
OZC
Q'-'UJ
l-l-E
DZ
03UJ
U I-
llll-
l-Q-U.
■ • CD
UJZUJ
CC^uJ
cIl-Z
l-LU-
l::ujz!I!
DLn 2
U. >M
_i_io
- -iXZ
> Z =! C U.'
ctcc I- L-Li:
LULUCC LU
Za.ZX3
Lu !-
u -J cr - yi
cn<r 3c
•-z z
3U--I-'-
UjU ZUJ
•-"CLLLlDCr:
>Cj')CXLl
- zzzxo.
>ODDH>-
o: tn cn LO \r
h-dcKIuji-
ZluUJLlIZ
DixccccGcn
D I'-'
zz
Q<t<r
LJHt-
GlCl::
CDOO
Dllll
Li:Er
cncn
LJOO
CQZZ
ZZH
cro
l-i£UJ
lCLlE
o «
llLUH
ru
-^Z_l
<IliJ
(-!->
G>-'a:
ZQH
CllCII-
lC CD
Ml- -
I l-u.
• t-oo:
■HG
LO U U CD
;g k-i
• U G Lil X
: z K
■Z-^O)
OGUJLl
j^-<auo
iH-OU.
•cr_) K
<H i-(.r!
IlCQZO
JOZUG
•Cl<IE
CD 0.-1
:zQ>-<i
'COGI-
LCGQO
:t-L:.UJI-
Zl-
<Z<1
X
HO
UJ
UJl-
l£Z
GG
ZX
XU
l->
ox-
3 G
cz
u 1"^-
-"GOl
iTCUi
t-3>
Ot^li:
U. UJ
-Horuj
ZGOJ
-U.
_J s--
z<ra
«a z
xdZLO
<IUJGUJ
rii:x>
Q a
o z
<i
UJ- Q
(-<wUJ
H D
UJ0 3
L& G
CClC
lCGU
ou.
U. CD-
ZdO
«ta z
cnu.^--
xC-jcn
<ruj<iuj
Zli:x>
OOUJ
u.
l£:_j
i-o<r
U1U.-
c u
UZUJ
GO.
Gd
cuo
>irz
LU-
<IUJ
Ud
z
OUJ ■
2- cn
(rocnz
□ zo
U.iXO'-i
cnu.K<i
I- <!_;
-ai-iG
EHGG
!i:H-.cr|LL|
ujEUJo:
UJ H
QQ.HZ
UJ z-
t-iLUOLL
EHCl
HHHH UJ
_JEO>
Z"3>-
G_l)-U.
CD 0- o '- r 4 f-i «t LT >o r^ cc o o ri rj r- -i «r uo >c n m c^ c— ■ r j n <4- uo -o r^ od !> C"- r-j r 'i ^ uo o n Oj o c '-< cj n fuiot^aioO'^ci
5555555555555>555>55>>5>5>5>55>>555>>55>>55555>555555:>>
I-
CD
Q •
- U
>UJU
acuz
ZliJ
-UJC
-ICJ'-'-
liJ — LTCn
tnuarci
_JU.O •
cr.o -zee
'jj LiJ«UJ
_I>H Q
l-t-CliJZ
2 — H-iDLU
C U (.0 C G
D
un
-J
U.(J
o
OJ
iZiUJ
siz:
LUC
zz
Ld
>
iliUUi
_J
D3_l
UUZ
a
llll*-
OCK
d
LUUjU
ZZU:
Q
_J
—1.
t-z
Zf-(J
■-^UTZ
!- >-<
Zt-
nzQ
XLu-j
zo
^->x
OClu
z_icn
llD
LlZD
-I LUX
Q
a:- ir _i • uD to ^
>zxc ui _io - cn
• CTdl- I - UJ - LU- O- to- • to -to en
UJU.ZO tn- oclc QoatniiLn- >0:li:<i qui u
^- ccciouzLCirtnjzuJi u_i u
►iLlu-C::- <ih'-' • LiJUJLuaiu>_iCZD iro: c
iroou>ztnLi:(-LU0')_!LJCJt3OLijtn>-iCi: luu
O li-OJ 3LiJZ^-Zl-ZUQQ>^Q<I- \_;_J- "vu- CC
D'UjUjLuaiiiitacL"-H3HQ<i'-'Z<rci:::toco- i-Ktn- _jQ<r
<izzci:-ia3D_ix;0'-'>-'CDu:ua:<x<xiriijjczzuaDt-uj
LLOocL_iiXicrtnLLiiit-_ja.Ci3ji-tDZi3<r>z<i<i>zz3aj
t-
tn ■^.
UQ 3
• x<z o
It-O ii
llJC_J iC
^ijc: si
• CQU-
CL UJ _J U o-/
UIZ>-NJ_| • ■
I--ZrsjU3tO-
1- C XI D -« O Uj •■
oziZii:aj>2X
Q
UJ
tn
_!
UJCD
>K'
UIO
cn>
--•f jK'<3-'^n^oo<ruT>oo — f ^a3(^o^^«-«^J^r^l•-^r■^'-r■^^'>
UT c^ r'l «r (E (>
^■^N-Hr^n-N — fii-
>>>>>>>>>r>>>>>U)>
<£
>
> > > >
.~.
<r
UT
>o
N
fj
n
ri
rj
rj
(_■
,-^
o
>
>
>
>
>
■ 2
CO
3
O'iUJ
1U.
■ _i
_1 C3UL
<I- ZD
LT c »- a. -
•■^32 UJ
iutn>t-3 >
UJUliJ-J UHCC
LL cr en o Q <r -I Lij
r 0. -' LD d a. m I
ujcarc cujot-
> z u -1 2 ^ ct ■ a. o
tn
COLLI
zz;
O'-
LLf-
(.n
Liicn
li
ZLl
o-
L.Ui
UH
a:
LlID
lb.
C>
>z
<i:<r
U.U.
oa
22
<>
scrz
LUU-HZ
U. D
LUOOG
QQ
UJU
<£<X
UUJ
uTli:
uu
zu
■ X-
UJ- >
e)Lu_i
zc::2
u z
QOCl
zzo
crcn
LiiCC
en L:J
_lljL.<t
UOLO
zz
dd
IX
ir-
UJLU
UJO
ili3
2!-K
UZZ
Z_J
3- orcc-iD
UIOlU-III
• \ICOu.h-UJ ' I
tn- uixri-uzz
UIODCOlilxOO
>2Z3UiBUJZZ
Ixl
Q\
C-
ruj
U.2
U.O
Ou.
I L~>
ccc
ceo
HZ
■ z>
CO
tC2
NllH
OZCj
>-<z
w
UJ
u
u
<I
a
ci en
_;-^o _i
-I- cc- • _i
Cuj • UJ .xi •-'
!-D->3ujLr;
<ron h-
|x>->>H
Hl-^._Jzcn
cooo<ru
zz>cnzf-
o a
0- — r-j r "i <t '^ r-i -1 f 4 r "i «t UT <! N CQ 0" -" r J '-' r- 4 h"! <r '-' c J f "• -^ r ,• n ^ --i r j r ■"> -^ r j t '■ -< r < >-< r j n ^ ut o r^ CD o t- r j n «r ut h- c> k< ^
> >
• V,
- -v
cn-
D
cn
G ■ CO •
G- t- cn-
G- UG
UJ
1- ZQ • UC
\- zo z uo
1-
ZD y- >z
N.>
on - Lu >z
cn ^ <i >z
cn
1- z
a • - •
O- t-Q <L
G- h-Q h-
G-
HQ- <I fJCJ \
^
z cn>
uu; zz- u -0-0
CJLJ ZZ- o: CM>
UU
zzcni- --'-
<I
LU -• lili-^
q: r;<r>x «*
Lt D<r>G «*
C:;
GciLea: *«l£:
E ■ U) !-• Lijt-
UJ IHiIi
111 XK-OJCL
.•\ Ul
IHUG o
O- UJOT ■ t-> !-Zl;T
I U1 Q LiU
I CD E UUJ
I
OTiLL UU> -v u
ij.a:iij >-Ui_! ZDO^
Q3 LLlCiTUJcr tncT
23 ULL'tu-- cnw
Q3
ucch-z cncnc »-- cn
_jOU- -'tn-H Doo
ecu- UjLutriiJQ ZZ
lCUJ- UJUCR ZZ
irtJLi-
UUG-- ZZLl U.O Z
oiijGUK- r z- xu>
CCTiiLLCO OC
GCniXU-QOH QG
GtnQ:u.G GG- uu. o
t- Qr:<i>cr_i<rcn
U._IUJ Z_JG LuL.
U._iU Z_JG LLLL
U-iU
i Z3t- Clll - UZ • LL
E
>f-cr)iiiccu-c:L!.ciujQ—
u.uj>uji:uz- CO CD
ixuj>ujDuz- cnco
LlU>
■UDUG- c'jcn'-r-u'-' utn
G
UXD nuLLLC za.uc^
C d CO « lC UJ LU
c ccn ccujuj
<i ccn li-Zcruu U.C • _ju
U
otllGi- z dilliccoox t-iiot-uji-uixcc:-
^- t-LLOt-Lyt-UJCCir-
-- l-LL
.o^- ua:Li:t''LL' uudcc
CO cnci:ujQt-i-«(_;c:;>-
t-zxLLZ>zx f.n
■ i-ZXLLZ>u.T c;)'
^-Zx
:llZ33X OUHiT^r
_iLCLij<iou<i<r — cccnD oaZjCCLG-'DKaoujDGacu.OHH v-aoiiJOCG<:
:LLa<iu,'-GO-uco<iuo
Q
O
U
ut-aJu.LLcniZ3ij.LjLr:rvzzit-QD_jioz2>
zzxt-oQ_j<iozz>zzii-oQtnii.ozz>czz:Eu.z
CD
Q
uT -0 1^ m 0- o -- f J f'' <T in «o > r j — r- j r ■> ^ ut nq n co c> "• —
r 4 -« r J t-^ <T UT -0 rv o 0- o -^ r J '^ r j r "
o
"3- LT -0 N O 0- C K - U -. C- -. f J C'
jL
«_^_^«^^_^
0- o
n <3-
N
CD r- CD
UJ
CD
03 c^
t> C^
0-
J> o o
> >
> >
> :>
a
I
<i
Q
CO
■•□
0 •
1 -I
u- □ •
cn_iG- u
Luoaou
Ci I 'Si O _I
cc cnxuoujc<i
CD acnucDiXii:
Ld'-i U CD
LiJ Q I X 111 -J Ul (- •
2:<r cDE_jrcjT
01 Q
- Q •
■ uju a:
LiJE>- LJ ChOOO^C^C-
Z>-<OCi:j^-v ■ CM>CM>OC>
►-ii-_iLu<i- oc^c^c^t^[^c^c^
^ _i t- r M uj uj o Ch -• — r J f n-"^ n
>2C;)GnItnU0';LL>2U.LLDLEIQ^ liT-H^JfTif f~,"'
CM> o ■:
O Ch o ■:
t I i <
I OUT'
■ uo
c>M6r|taqa l>epartn|er(t
of
THsti^'WiUUtfe (Si Varf^
February 17 , 19 8?
Dear Montana Elk Hunter:
About three weeks ago, I wrote asking about the most recent elk
hunting trip you took during the 19 86 general hunting season In
Montana, As of today, we have not yet received your completed
questionnaire.
The survey Information will be used to make decisions about
future elk and hunting management In Montana. We believe that
hunters' opinions should be an Important consideration In these
management decisions.
Another copy of the questionnaire is provided in case the
original one has been misplaced. We think you'll enjoy
completing the survey; we have yet to meet a hunter who doesn't
like to think about hunting or doesn't have an opinion on how elk
should be managed!
Most of the questions ask about the most recent hunting trip you
took in Montana during the general season. So you can tell us
where you hunted on that trip, the back of this letter contains a
map of hunting areas; please keep it handy.
The survey should take about 15-20 minutes to complete, and we've
Included a stamped, addressed return envelope for your
convenience. Your identity will be confidential because your
name will not be associated with your responses.
Thanks for your help. If you'd like a summary of the results of
this study, please write your name and address on the return
envelope (not on the questionnaire) and I'll make sure you get
one. If you have any questions, please call (i406) 9914-636U.
Sincerely,
SfjCj
/
Pat Graham
S t udy Di rector
APPENDIX B
KEY VARIABLES REPORTED BY STUDY AREA
Table B-1. Hunters' residence, by area (in percent)
Area
Area Number of Respondents
No. Montana Other (Percentage of Total)
Libby
1
69
31
267 (
9 )
Bob Marshall
13
56
44
109 (
4 )
Augusta
14
65
35
248 (
8 )
Superior
19
82
18
240 (
8 )
Flint Creek
20
81
18
336 (
11 )
Butte
24
86
14
108 (
3 )
Townsend
25
76
23
200
6 )
Little Belt Mtns .
26
71
29
69
2 )
Pioneer Mtns.
30
68
32
284
9 )
Tobacco Root Mtns .
31
69
31
182
6 )
Bridger Mtns .
32
70
30
113
4 )
Tendoy Mtns .
38
61
39
79
3 )
Gravelly Mtns.
39
63
37
146
5 )
Madison Mtns.
40
58
42
271
9 )
Gardiner
41
58
42
293
( 10 )
Absaroka Mtns .
42
67
33
112
( 4 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
69
31
( 100 )
Table B-2. How elk hunting compares to hunters' other recreational
activities, by area (in percent).
Area
One of Number of
One of Many Prefer Respondents
Area Favorite Favorite Activities Other (Percentage
No. Activity Activities I Do Activities of Total
Libby
53
35
Bob
Marshall
13
16
42
43
Augusta
14
14
48
36
Superior
19
23
45
31
Flint
Creek
20
18
45
35
Butte
24
15
52
30
Townsend
25
16
47
35
Little
Belt Mtns.
26
22
49
25
Pioneer
Mtns.
30
21
50
29
Tobacco
Root Mtns .
31
13
54
31
Bridger
Mtns.
32
7
45
47
Tendoy
Mtns .
38
23
45
31
Gravelly
Mtns.
39
21
48
28
Madison
Mtns .
40
16
53
30
Gardiner
41
14
49
36
Absaroka
Mtns.
42
12
46
38
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
16
48
34
266
108
2
247
4
239
1
335
3
107
1
198
4
69
4
284
2
181
111
78
145
271
293
112
Table B-3. Level of previous experience hunting in this area, by
area (in percent).
Number of
Respondents
Area
Area
No.
First
Time Here
Have Hunted
Here Before
( Percentage
of Total)
Libby
1
29
71
266
9 )
Bob Marshall
13
36
64
109
4 )
Augusta
14
35
65
246
8 )
Superior
19
23
77
239
8 )
Flint Creek
20
26
74
332
11 )
Butte
24
21
79
108
4 )
Townsend
25
25
74
196
6 )
Little Belt
Mtns .
26
35
65
69
2 )
Pioneer Mtns.
30
26
74
282
9 )
Tobacco Root
Mtns .
31
30
70
180
6 )
Bridger Mtns .
32
39
61
113
4 )
Tendoy Mtns .
38
22
78
76
2 )
Gravelly Mtns.
39
28
72
146
5 )
Madison Mtns.
40
41
59
269
9 )
Gardiner
41
43
57
290
10 )
Absaroka Mtns .
42
39
61
107
3 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
31
69
100 )
Table B-4 . Use of a guide or outfitter, by area (in percent)
Guide or Guide or
Area Outfitter Outfitter Number of Respondents
Area No. Used Not Used (Percentage of Total)
Libby
1
7
92
267 (
9 )
Bob Marshall
13
30
70
109 (
4 )
Augusta
14
12
88
246 (
8 )
Superior
19
4
96
240 (
8 )
Flint Creek
20
5
95
333 (
11 )
Butte
24
2
98
108
4 )
Townsend
25
4
95
198
6 )
Little Belt
Mtns.
26
13
87
69
2 )
Pioneer Mtns.
30
8
92
281
9 )
Tobacco Root
Mtns.
31
3
97
181
6 )
Bridger Mtns .
32
13
87
112
( 4 )
Tendoy Mtns .
38
9
91
78
( 3 )
Gravelly Mtns.
39
5
95
146
( 5 )
Madison Mtns.
40
18
82
270
( 9 )
Gardiner
41
29
71
289
( 9 )
Absaroka Mtns .
42
13
87
109
( 4 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
11
89
( 100 )
Table B-5. Proportion of hunters who harvested an elk, by area
( in percent ) .
Area
Area
No.
Number of
Respondents
Elk No Elk (Percentage
Harvested Harvested of Total)
Libby
1
11
Bob Marshall
13
13
Augusta
14
17
Superior
19
19
Flint Creek
20
17
Butte
24
12
Townsend
25
13
Little Belt Mtns .
26
32
Pioneer Mtns .
30
19
Tobacco Root Mtns .
31
16
Bridger Mtns.
32
23
Tendoy Mtns .
38
27
Gravelly Mtns.
39
15
Madison Mtns .
40
19
Gardiner
41
31
Absaroka Mtns .
42
13
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
18
89
266
9 )
87
109
4 )
83
246
8 )
81
240
8 )
83
334
11 )
88
107
3 )
86
200
7 )
68
69
2 )
81
280
9 )
84
182
6 )
77
113
4 )
73
79
3 )
85
145
5 )
81
270
9 )
69
290
9 )
87
111
4 )
82
(
100 )
Table B-6. Type of elk harvested, by area (in percent]
Area
Area
No.
Antlered
Antlerless
Number of
Respondents
( Percentage
of Total)
Libby
1
63
Bob Marshall
13
71
Augusta
14
33
Superior
19
91
Flint Creek
20
90
Butte
24
85
Townsend
25
85
Little Belt Mtns .
26
68
Pioneer Mtns .
30
91
Tobacco Root Mtns .
31
97
Bridger Mtns .
32
96
Tendoy Mtns .
38
100
Gravelly Mtns.
39
91
Madison Mtns.
40
78
Gardiner
41
78
Absaroka Mtns.
42
71
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
80
37
30 (
5 )
29
14 (
2 )
67
43 (
7 )
8
47 (
8 )
10
58 (
10 )
15
13 (
2 )
15
27
5 )
32
22
4 )
9
55
10 )
3
30
5 )
4
26
5 )
21
[ 4 )
9
22
( 4 )
22
54
( 9 )
22
94
( 16 )
29
14
( 2 )
20
( 100
Table B-7. Number of points on side 1 for elk harvested, by area (in percent)
Number of Points
Area
Area
No.
Number of
Respondents
( Percentage
of Total
Libby
1
32
10
5
5
16
32
Bob Marshall
13
10
10
10
60
Augusta
14
36
7
7
29
21
Superior
19
43
9
5
12
19
12
Flint Creek
20
53
9
6
19
11
Butte
24
54
9
9
9
9
9
Townsend
25
52
13
9
13
13
Little Belt Mtns .
26
43
21
7
21
7
Pioneer Mtns.
30
39
6
6
8
27
10
Tobacco Root Mtns .
31
11
29
18
18
21
4
Bridger Mtns.
32
20
28
8
4
24
16
Tendoy Mtns .
38
43
9
9
33
5
Gravelly Mtns.
39
19
19
5
9
33
14
Madison Mtns.
40
15
5
5
24
29
22
Gardiner
41
24
1
1
10
26
37
Absaroka Mtns.
42
30
30
10
30
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
33
11
5
9
23
18
10
19
10
14
42
53
11
23
14
51
28
25
21
21
41
72
10
4
2
3
9
12
2
5
3
11
6
5
5
5
9
16 )
2 )
100 )
Table B-9 . How the hunting area compared to other elk hunting locations in
Montana, by area (in percent).
Area
One of Prefer Number of
One of Many to Hunt Respondents
Area Favorite Favorite Places Other (Percentage
No, Place Places I Hunt Places of Total
Libby
Bob Marshall
Augusta
Superior
Flint Creek
Butte
Townsend
Little Belt Mtns .
Pioneer Mtns.
Tobacco Root Mtns
Bridger Mtns .
Tendoy Mtns .
Gravelly Mtns.
Madison Mtns .
Gardiner
Absaroka Mtns .
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
1
13
14
19
20
24
25
26
30
31
32
38
39
40
41
42
25
34
24
34
24
28
21
26
30
30
27
28
31
25
30
16
27
35
43
37
37
45
41
42
38
39
41
34
47
44
39
30
40
39
33
17
27
24
25
22
29
33
25
21
29
24
17
26
25
24
25
7
6
13
6
5
9
8
3
5
8
9
1
9
10
15
19
9
250
95
228
228
325
103
187
66
271
171
105
76
137
247
272
103
9
3
8
8
11
4
6
2
9
6
4
3
5
9
9
4
100
Table B-12. Hunters' perceptions of recent changes in the number of open
roads, by area (in percent).
Area
Area
No.
Number
Has
Increased
Number
Has
Decreased
Number
Has Not
Changed
Not
Sure
Number of
Respondents
( Percentage
of Total)
Libby
1
19
37
15
28
262 (
9 )
Bob Marshall
13
6
13
46
34
96 (
3 )
Augusta
14
3
22
45
30
229 (
8 )
Superior
19
26
22
32
20
237
8 )
Flint Creek
20
20
25
30
24
331
11 )
Butte
24
18
28
35
19
106
4 )
Townsend
25
8
26
34
32
195
7 )
Little Belt Mtns .
26
9
19
34
38
68
2 )
Pioneer Mtns.
30
21
33
26
20
275
9 )
Tobacco Root Mtns .
31
8
40
27
25
178
( 6 )
Bridger Mtns.
32
12
12
37
38
113
( 4 )
Tendoy Mtns .
38
21
36
21
22
77
( 3 )
Gravelly Mtns.
39
3
39
31
27
143
( 5 )
Madison Mtns.
40
9
14
34
43
264
( 9 )
Gardiner
41
7
6
47
40
285
{ 10 )
Absaroka Mtns.
42
7
11
49
32
107
( 4 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
13
24
33
29
(
100 )
Table B-13. Hunters' preferences for road management to retrieve
game with vehicles, by area (in percent).
Area
Use
OK to
OK to
Number of
Open
Use
Travel
Respondents
Area
Roads
Closed
Off
(Percentage
No.
Only
Roads
Roads
of Total)
Libby
1
49
Bob Marshall
13
70
Augusta
14
58
Superior
19
62
Flint Creek
20
52
Butte
24
46
Townsend
25
46
Little Belt Mtns .
26
51
Pioneer Mtns .
30
41
Tobacco Root Mtns .
31
47
Bridger Mtns .
32
60
Tendoy Mtns .
38
42
Gravelly Mtns.
39
48
Madison Mtns.
40
60
Gardiner
41
62
Absaroka Mtns .
42
63
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
53
43
29
25
29
36
32
28
19
40
36
26
20
30
26
23
18
31
8
260 (
9 )
1
87
3 )
17
233
8 )
9
231
8 )
11
324
11 )
22
107
4 )
26
194
7 )
29
68
2 )
19
279
9 )
17
181
6 )
14
107
4 )
38
79
3 )
22
143
5 )
14
265
9 )
14
285
10 )
19
108
( 4 )
16
(
100 )
Table B-14. Hunters' reactions to unlimited elk permits (and reduced bull
chances), by area (in percent).
Area
Area
No. Favor
Do Not
Favor
But
Would
Accept
Need More
Not Information
Acceptable to Respond
Number of
Respondents
( Percentage
of Total)
Libby
1
37
25
15
Bob Marshall
13
30
25
16
Augusta
14
29
25
20
Superior
19
43
19
18
Flint Creek
20
41
24
15
Butte
24
38
23
17
Townsend
25
36
25
17
Little Belt Mtns .
26
37
21
19
Pioneer Mtns.
30
33
24
18
Tobacco Root Mtns.
31
28
27
20
Bridger Mtns.
32
33
19
21
Tendoy Mtns .
38
29
27
20
Gravelly Mtns.
39
33
29
15
Madison Mtns.
40
33
22
27
Gardiner
41
24
23
28
Absaroka Mtns.
42
21
26
38
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
33
24
20
23
256
9 )
29
107
4 )
26
243
8 )
20
234
8 )
20
327
11 )
22
108
4 )
21
198
7 )
22
67
2 )
25
278
9 )
25
176
6 )
27
106
4 )
23
78
3 )
23
142
5 )
18
262
9 )
25
284
9 )
15
111
4 )
23
(
100 )
Table B-15. Hunters' reactions to unlimited permits but with mandatory choice
of only one hunting district, by area (in percent).
Area
Area
No. Favor
Do Not
Favor
But
Would
Accept
Need More
Not Information
Acceptable to Respond
Number of
Respondents
(Percentage
of Total)
Libby
1
17
34
39
Bob Marshall
13
23
34
29
Augusta
14
21
34
33
Superior
19
23
31
36
Flint Creek
20
21
33
37
Butte
24
17
36
42
Townsend
25
18
27
43
Little Belt Mtns .
26
18
34
41
Pioneer Mtns.
30
19
32
40
Tobacco Root Mtns.
31
20
35
33
Bridger Mtns.
32
18
39
34
Tendoy Mtns .
38
19
37
29
Madison Mtns.
40
21
34
34
Gardiner
41
19
34
33
Absaroka Mtns.
42
25
29
38
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
20
33
36
10
258
( 9 )
14
105
3 )
11
241
8 )
10
236
8 )
9
327
11 )
5
107
4 )
10
200
7 )
7
68
2 )
9
277
9 )
12
172
6 )
8
109
4 )
14
78
3 )
11
265
9 )
14
286
10 )
8
112
4 )
11
(
100 )
Table B-16. Hunters' reactions to limited permits (and increased bull elk
chances), by area (in percent).
Area
Area
No. Favor
Do Not
Favor
But
Would
Accept
Number of
Need More Respondents
Not Information (Percentage
Acceptable to Respond of Total)
Libby
1
10
22
61
Bob Marshall
13
10
25
51
Augusta
14
15
21
54
Superior
19
8
19
65
Flint Creek
20
8
22
62
Butte
24
14
14
58
Townsend
25
13
19
53
Little Belt Mtns .
26
12
18
66
Pioneer Mtns.
30
9
18
63
Tobacco Root Mtns .
31
17
21
55
Bridger Mtns .
32
13
27
52
Tendoy Mtns .
38
6
17
68
Gravelly Mtns.
39
17
13
57
Madison Mtns .
40
14
21
59
Gardiner
41
18
19
50
Absaroka Mtns.
42
20
19
45
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
13
20
58
7
259
9 )
13
107
4 )
10
242
8 )
8
232
8 )
8
328
11 )
14
108
4 )
14
200
7 )
4
67
2 )
10
281
9 )
7
173
6 )
8
109
[ 4 )
9
78
3 )
13
143
5 )
6
265
9 )
13
283
9 )
15
112
4 )
10
(
100 )
Table B-17. Hunters' reactions to two-point regulations, by area (in
percent ) .
Area
Area
No.
Favor
Do Not
Favor
But
Would
Accept
Need More
Not Information
Acceptable to Respond
Number of
Respondents
(Percentage
of Total)
Libby
Bob Marshall
Augusta
Superior
Flint Creek
Butte
Townsend
Little Belt Mtns .
Pioneer Mtns.
Tobacco Root Mtns .
Bridger Mtns.
Tendoy Mtns .
Gravelly Mtns.
Madison Mtns.
Gardiner
Absaroka Mtns.
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
1
35
36
23
13
48
28
11
14
46
30
13
19
31
38
24
20
46
33
18
24
52
24
20
25
45
29
18
26
42
42
14
30
41
33
17
31
60
25
12
32
37
33
23
38
45
37
10
39
52
32
13
40
54
24
13
41
44
31
17
42
48
22
22
45
31
17
6
259 (
9 )
12
106 (
3 )
11
243 (
8 )
235 (
8 )
326 (
11 )
108
4 )
200
7 )
66
2 )
9
279
9 )
3
174
( 6 )
7
109
( 4 )
8
78
( 3 )
3
142
( 5 )
9
265
( 9 )
8
288
( 10 )
9
111
( 4 )
7
(
100 )
Table B-18. Hunters' reactions to five-point regulations, by area (in
percent) .
Area
Area
No. Favor
Do Not
Favor
But
Would
Accept
Number of
Need More Respondents
Not Information (Percentage
Acceptable to Respond of Total)
Libby
1
10
23
60
Bob Marshall
13
16
32
42
Augusta
14
13
26
52
Superior
19
11
17
66
Flint Creek
20
11
23
59
Butte
24
11
24
61
Townsend
25
6
28
60
Little Belt Mtns .
26
15
19
61
Pioneer Mtns.
30
8
23
59
Tobacco Root Mtns .
31
10
28
56
Bridger Mtns.
32
11
22
60
Tendoy Mtns .
38
11
27
53
Gravelly Mtns.
39
8
22
61
Madison Mtns.
40
20
20
49
Gardiner
41
17
25
50
Absaroka Mtns.
42
12
27
54
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
12
24
56
7
260
9 )
10
107
4 )
9
244
8 )
5
235
8 )
7
327
11 )
4
107
4 )
5
200
7 )
4
67
2 )
10
279
9 )
5
174
6 )
7
109
4 )
9
78
3 )
9
143
5 )
11
265
9 )
8
288
10 )
7
112
4 )
8
(
100 )
Table B-19. Hunters' reactions to antlerless elk management scenario, by area
( in percent ) .
Area
Area
No. Favor
Do Not
Favor
But
Would
Accept
Need More
Not Information
Acceptable to Respond
Number of
Respondents
( Percentage
of Total)
Libby
1
38
28
23
Bob Marshall
13
57
20
11
Augusta
14
53
27
14
Superior
19
53
27
15
Flint Creek
20
63
20
12
Butte
24
59
27
8
Townsend
25
66
18
10
Little Belt Mtns .
26
60
22
15
Pioneer Mtns.
30
56
24
12
Tobacco Root Mtns .
31
65
19
7
Bridger Mtns .
32
57
19
15
Tendoy Mtns .
38
69
19
5
Gravelly Mtns.
39
50
24
18
Madison Mtns .
40
62
18
12
Gardiner
41
55
21
15
Absaroka Mtns.
42
59
22
11
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
57
22
13
11
260
9 )
12
107
4 )
6
243
8 )
4
236
8 )
5
329
11 )
6
108
4 )
5
200
7 )
3
67
2 )
8
279
9 )
9
176
6 )
9
109
4 )
6
78
3 )
8
143
5 )
8
264
9 )
8
287
10 )
8
111
4 )
7
(
100 )
APPENDIX C
ADDITIONAL ANALYSES:
RESPONSES FROM ALL-TERRAIN USERS, MEMBERS OF
ORGANIZATIONS, AND YOUNGER HUNTERS
APPENDIX C
ADDITIONAL ANALYSES: RESPONSES FROM ALL-TERRAIN USERS,
MEMBERS OF ORGANIZATIONS, AND YOUNGER HUNTERS
I . Responses of Hunters Who Used a Dirt Bike or All-terrain
Vehicle on Their Most Recent Elk Hunting Trip
The use of an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) for hunting creates a
unique set of management considerations, making it desirable to
compare the responses of ATV users with those of hunters who did
not use an ATV,
Only 137 of the hunters surveyed reported using a dirt bike or
other off-road vehicle on their most recent hunting trip. This
number may have been low if more ATV ' s were used earlier in the
hunting season when roads were less snowy.
Residents and non-residents were equally likely to have used an
ATV on their most recent trip (about 4.5 percent of each group).
There were no differences between ATV users and non-users in
rate of harvest; just under 20 percent of each group had taken an
elk on their last hunting trip.
ATV users and non-users both chose their hunting locations for
similar reasons. However, ATV users rated solitude and getting
away from other hunters as less important reasons for hunting
where they did, and rated getting a trophy elk and hunting with
their family as more important, compared to hunters who didn't
use an ATV.
The two groups differed on perceptions of road access and
preferences for road management. Of the ATV users, 12 percent
said that good road access was not at all important in their
choice of hunting areas, compared to 24 percent of the non-users.
Seventeen percent of the ATV users said their hunting area
contained too few roads open to vehicle access, compared to 9
percent of the non-users.
Far more ATV users (35 percent) compared to non-users (15
percent) said that vehicles should be able to be used off roads
to retrieve game. Thirty-three percent of the ATV users said
hunters should be able to use vehicles only on open roads to
retrieve game, compared to 54 percent of the non-users.
Tables C-1 to C-6 show the two groups' views on the six
management scenarios. More ATV users than non-users favored the
option requiring hunters to pick the district where they would
hunt (Table C-2). ATV users also objected more strongly to point
regulations (Tables C-4 and C-5). The two groups rated the other
scenarios about the same.
II. Responses of Hunters Who Said They Were Members of a
Hunting. Conservation, or Sport Organization
State agencies often wonder whether many of the comments they
receive at public meetings on big game management regulations and
other issues come primarily from members of organizations. The
responses of members and non-members of such groups were analyzed
to identify and compare their preferences and behaviors.
About 30 percent of the Montana residents surveyed said they
belonged to one or more such groups, compared to 61 percent of
the non-residents. Members were slightly less likely to say their
hunting area contained too few roads for hunting (Table C-7) and
slightly more likely to favor using vehicles only on open roads
to retrieve game (Table C-8). However, the differences were not
that great, and their rank order of preferences was the same.
Tables C-9 to C-14 compare the attitudes of members and non-
members toward the six management scenarios. Generally, members
of organizations tended to rate the restrictive regulations more
favorably than did non-members . As was the case with road
management preferences, the rank order of responses was similar
for members and non-members. For example, Table C-12 shows that
51 percent of the members of an organization favored two-point
regulations, compared to just 41 percent of the non-members.
However, the rank order of the two groups' responses was the
same; more non-members favored two-point regulations than said
they could accept them, couldn't accept them, or would need
additional information to take a stance.
The differences between members and non-members may seem smaller
than expected. One possible reason was that this analysis
grouped together all hunters who were members of any hunting,
conservation, or sport organization -- a large and very diverse
set. Analysis by specific organization would be possible because
these data were collected on the survey; hunters who said they
were members of an organization were asked to name the specific
groups. This analysis would likely yield larger distinctions
among members of different organizations, which were masked by
lumping all members together.
III. The Views of Younger Hunters
The young people who are hunting today may be hunting for a long
time. It's thereful helpful to know how their views and
behaviors differ from those of older, more experienced hunters.
Of course, this does not mean they will continue to hold those
views as they grow older -- perhaps, with time, they will more
closely resemble the older hunters.
For this set of analyses, hunters were grouped not just into two
categories (younger and older) but into seven, ranging from 16 or
younger to 60 or older.
Table C-15 shows that hunters of all ages had similar
perceptions of the adequacy of road access; hunters in each age
category felt the number of roads was about right, while roughly
twice as many said there were too many roads as said there were
too few roads .
Older hunters tended to say they should be allowed to use
vehicles on closed roads or off roads to retrieve game (Table C-
16). Younger and older hunters said that good road access was a
more important reason for choosing hunting location than did
hunters in median age brackets (Table C-17), and a similar
pattern was found on the importance of solitude (Table C-18).
It is not necessarily age alone that created these differences.
For example, more of the younger hunters lived in Montana (Table
C-19), and many differences between resident and non-resident
hunters have already been documented.
Tables C-20 to C-25 show that younger and older hunters had
similar views of many management actions. The percent falling
into each category (favor, accept, not accept, need more
information) changed with age, but the relative ranks were very
similar.
Table C-1. Comparison of ATV users' and non-users' attitudes
toward unlimited elk permits (with reduced chances of taking a
bull) (in percent).
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
(Percentage
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to Respond
of Total)
ATV used
32
27
17
24
131 ( 4 )
ATV not used
33
24
21
22
2892 ( 96 )
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
33
24
20
22
( 100)
Table C-2 . Comparison of ATV users' and non-users' attitudes
toward unlimited permits for one area (in percent).
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
(Percentage
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to Respond
of Total)
ATV used
28
36
31
5
132 ( 4 )
ATV not used
20
33
36
11
2897 ( 96 )
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
20
33
36
11
( 100 )
Table C-3. Comparison of ATV users' and non-users' attitudes
toward limited permits for one area (in percent).
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
(Percentage
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to Respond
of Total)
ATV used
16
17
57
10
133 ( 4 )
ATV not used
13
20
57
10
2899 ( 96 )
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
13
20
57
10
( 100 )
Table C-4 . Comparison of ATV users ' and non-users
toward two-point regulations (in percent).
attitudes
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
(Percentage
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to Respond
of Total)
ATV used
41
33
21
4
132 ( 4 )
ATV not used
45
31
17
7
2903 ( 96 )
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
45
31
17
7
{ 100 )
Table C-5. Comparison of ATV users' and non-users' attitudes
toward five-point regulations (in percent).
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
(Percentage
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to Respond
of Total)
ATV used
8
22
54
6
133 ( 4 )
ATV not used
12
24
56
8
2908 ( 96 )
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
12
24
56
8
( 100 )
Table C-6. Comparison of ATV users' and non-users' attitudes
toward regulations concerning antlerless elk hunted by district
( in percent) .
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
(Percentage
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to Respond
of Total)
ATV used
57
26
11
6
133 ( 4 )
ATV not used
57
22
14
7
2910 ( 96 )
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
57
22
13
7
( 100 )
Table C-7. Comparison of organizational members' and non-
members' evaluations of road access (in percent).
Number of
Respondents
Too About Too (Percentage
Few Right Many of Total)
Organizational member 7 71
Organizational non-member 11 67
TOTAL PERCENTAGE 9 6 8
22
22
22
1183 ( 39 )
1812 ( 60 )
(100)
Table C-8. Comparison of organizational members' and nonmembers '
evaluation of road management for game retrieval purposes ( in
percent) .
Number of
Respondents
Open
Closed
Off-road
( Percentage
Only
OK
OK
of
Total)
Yes
58
27
15
1165
( 39 )
No
50
33
17
1797
( 61 )
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
53
30
16
(100)
Table C-9. Comparison of organizational members' and non-members' attitudes
toward unlimited elk permits (but reduced chances of taking a bull) (in
percent) .
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
(Percentage
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to Respond
of Total)
Yes 31
25
24
20
1183 ( 39 )
No 34
23
18
24
1814 ( 60 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE 33
24
20
22
(100)
Table C-10. Comparison of organizational members' and non-members' attitudes
toward unlimited elk permits (but reduced chances of taking a bull) for one
area (in percent).
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
(Percentage
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to Respond
of Total)
Yes 21
34
35
10
1186 ( 39 )
No 20
32
37
11
1818 ( 60 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE 20
33
36
11
(100)
Table C-11. Comparison of organizational members' and non-members' attitudes
toward limited elk permits (but reduced chances of taking a bull) for one
area (in percent).
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
( Percentage
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to Respond
of Total)
Yes 15
20
55
9
1186 ( 39 )
No 11
20
59
10
1822 ( 61 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE 13
20
57
10
(100)
Table C-12. Comparison of organizational members
toward two-point regulations (in percent).
and non-members ' attitudes
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
( Percentage
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to Respond
of Total)
Yes 51
30
13
6
1188 ( 39 )
No 41
32
20
7
1821 ( 60 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE 4 5
31
17
7
(100)
Table C-13. Comparison of organizational members' and non-members' attitudes
toward five-point regulations (in percent).
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
(Percentage
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to Respond
of Total)
Yes 18
25
48
9
1191 ( 39 )
No 9
23
61
7
1824 ( 60 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE 12
24
56
8
(100)
Table C-14. Comparison of organizational members' and non-members
toward antlerless elk regulations, by district (in percent).
attitudes
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
( Percentage
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to Respond
of Total)
Yes 62
20
12
6
1188 ( 39 )
No 54
24
14
8
1828 ( 61 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE 57
22
14
7
(100)
Table C-15. Hunters' perceptions of road access, by age (in
percent) .
Hunter ' s Age
Too
About
Few
Right
10
68
9
64
7
68
9
67
10
69
12
70
10
72
10
68
Number of
Respondents
Too ( Percentage
Many of Total)
10
- 16
years
17
- 21
years
22
- 29
years
30
- 39
years
40
- 49
years
50
- 59
years
60
years and older
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
21
164
5 )
27
149
5 )
25
466
15 )
24
844
28 )
21
689
23 )
19
424
14 )
18
269
9 )
22
100)
Table C-16. Hunters' opinions on using vehicles on roads to
retrieve game, by age (in percent).
Number of
Respondents
Open
Closed
Off-road
(Percentage
Hunter's Age
Only
OK
OK
of Total)
10 - 16 years
52
32
16
163
5 )
17-21 years
53
30
17
146
5 )
22 - 29 years
63
25
11
461
15 )
30 - 39 years
59
28
13
825
28 )
40 - 49 years
50
31
18
689
23 )
50 - 59 years
46
35
19
423
14 )
60 years and older
38
37
25
265
9 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
53
31
16
100)
Table C-17. The importance of good road access in choosing hunting location,
by age (in percent).
Number of
Respondents
Very
Not Very
Not
at
all
( Percentage
Age
Important
Important
Important
Important
of
Total)
10 - 16 years
18
35
36
11
157
( 5 )
17 - 21 years
14
27
37
22
147
( 5 )
22 - 29 years
7
26
41
26
466
( 16 )
30 - 39 years
8
31
35
25
843
( 29 )
40-49 years
11
30
32
26
681
( 23 )
50 - 59 years
14
34
31
21
410
( 14 )
60 years and o
Ider
15
40
27
17
248
( 8 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
11
31
34
23
(100)
Table C-18. The importance of solitude in choosing hunting location, by age
( in percent) .
Number of
Respondents
Very
Not Very
Not at
all
(Percentage
Age
Important
Important
Important
Important
of
Total)
10 - 16 years
23
42
26
8
145
( 5 )
17-21 years
30
42
20
8
141
( 5 )
22 - 29 years
39
43
14
4
459
( 16 )
30 - 39 years
39
41
15
4
840
( 29 )
40 - 49 years
38
41
15
6
693
( 24 )
50 - 59 years
31
48
16
4
403
( 14 )
60 years and o
Ider
27
41
20
11
234
( 8 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
36
43
16
5
(100)
Table C-19. The importance of hunting for meat in choosing hunting location,
by age (in percent).
Number of
Respondents
Very
Not Very
Not
at
all
(Percentage
Age
Important
Important
Important
Important
of
Total)
10 - 16 years
51
38
10
2
164
( 5 )
17-21 years
46
31
17
5
149
( 5 )
22 - 29 years
42
36
17
5
473
( 16 )
30 - 39 years
34
38
21
7
851
( 28 )
4 0 - 4 9 years
26
37
25
12
701
( 23 )
50 - 59 years
25
33
24
18
426
( 14 )
60 years and o
Ider
24
34
22
19
263
( 9 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
32
36
21
10
(100)
Table C-20. State of residence, by age (in percent)
Age
Montana
10 - 16 years
94
17-21 years
91
22 - 29 years
80
30 - 39 years
69
40 - 49 years
59
50 - 59 years
59
60 years and o
Ider
69
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
69
Number of Respondents
Other (Percentage of Total)
5
9
20
31
41
41
31
31
165
5 )
150
5 )
474
15 )
856
28 )
710
23 )
438
14 )
282
9 )
100 )
Table C-21. Hunters' reactions to unlimited elk permits (and reduced chances
of getting a bull), by age (in percent).
Age
Favor
Do Not
Favor
But
Would
Accept
Not
Acceptable
Need More
Information
to Respond
Number of
Respondents
( Percentage
of Total)
10
-
16
years
17
-
21
years
22
-
29
years
30
-
39
years
40
-
49
years
50
-
59
years
60
years and older
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
(100)
23
31
34
36
33
33
32
33
28
20
22
23
23
27
28
24
20
26
21
21
24
18
11
20
29
22
22
21
21
22
29
22
159
148
469
845
697
420
269
5 )
5 )
16 )
28 )
23 )
14 )
9 )
Table C-22. Hunters' reactions to unlimited permits but with mandatory choice
of only one hunting district, by age (in percent).
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
(Percentage
Age
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to Respond
of
Total)
10 - 16 years
22
25
40
12
158
( 5 )
17-21 years
17
35
40
7
149
( 5 )
22 - 29 years
21
33
37
10
468
( 15 )
30 - 39 years
20
31
39
10
848
( 28 )
40 - 49 years
23
33
33
11
701
( 23 )
50 - 59 years
16
36
35
12
424
( 14 )
60 years and o
Ider
18
38
30
14
265
( 9 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
20
33
36
11
(100)
Table C-23. Hunters' reactions to limited permits (and increased bull elk
chances), by age (in percent).
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Ne
>ed More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
(Percentage
Age
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to
Respond
of
Total)
10 - 16 years
19
30
40
11
159
{ 5 )
17 - 21 years
15
17
59
9
149
( 5 )
22 - 29 years
12
17
61
9
468
( 15 )
30 - 39 years
13
18
62
8
849
( 28 )
40 - 49 years
14
20
56
10
698
( 23 )
50 - 59 years
9
21
58
11
427
( 14 )
60 years and o
Ider
11
25
49
14
266
( 9 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
13
20
57
10
(100)
Table C-24. Hunters' reactions to two-point regulations, by age (in percent)
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need
More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
( Percentage
Age
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to
Respond
of
Total)
10 - 16 years
39
28
26
7
159
( 5 )
17-21 years
40
35
20
5
149
( 5 )
22 - 29 years
50
26
17
7
465
{ 15 )
30 - 39 years
49
30
14
7
848
( 28 )
40 - 49 years
50
28
15
7
702
( 23 )
50 - 59 years
38
36
20
7
429
( 14 )
60 years and o
Ider
29
43
18
9
267
( 9 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
45
31
17
7
(100)
Table C-25. Hunters' reactions to five-point regulations, by age (in
percent ) .
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
(Percentage
Age
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to Respond
of
Total )
7
21
67
5
158
10 - 16 years
( 5 )
17 - 21 years
6
23
66
5
149
( 5 )
22 - 29 years
11
24
57
8
470
{ 15 )
30 - 39 years
14
25
53
8
850
( 28 )
40 - 49 years
16
24
52
7
702
( 23 )
50 - 59 years
13
21
58
8
430
( 14 )
60 years and o
Ider
4
26
58
11
266
( 9 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
12
24
56
8
(100)
Table C-26. Hunters' reactions to antlerless elk management scenario, by age
( in percent) .
Do Not
Favor
Number of
But
Need
More
Respondents
Would
Not
Information
(Percentage
Age
Favor
Accept
Acceptable
to
Respond
of Total)
10 - 16 years
51
23
17
9
159
5 )
17 - 21 years
57
24
11
7
149
5 )
22 - 29 years
60
21
12
7
466
15 )
30 - 39 years
60
19
14
7
851
28 )
40 - 49 years
60
19
12
8
703
23 )
50 - 59 years
52
26
16
6
429
14 )
60 years and o
Ider
43
36
14
8
270
9 )
TOTAL PERCENTAGE
57
22
13
7
(100)
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11